(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all discovered errors.)
Transliteration of Greek words: All phonetical except: w = omega; h serves
three puposes: 1. = Eta; 2. = rough breathing, when appearing initially
before a vowel; 3. = in the aspirated letters theta = th, phi = ph, chi =
ch. Accents are given immediately after their corresponding vowels: acute =
' , grave = `, circumflex = ^. The character ' doubles as an apostrophe,
when necessary.
ST. AUGUSTIN
THE CITY OF GOD, BOOKS VII-VIII.
[Translated by Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D.]
BOOK VII.
ARGUMENT: IN THIS BOOK IT IS SHOWN THAT ETERNAL LIFE IS NOT OBTAINED BY THE
WORSHIP OF JANUS, JUPITER, SATURN, AND THE OTHER "SELECT GODS" OF THE CIVIL
THEOLOGY.
PREFACE.
IT will be the duty of those who are endowed with quicker and better
understandings, in whose case the former books are sufficient, and more
than sufficient, to effect their intended object, to bear with me with
patience and equanimity whilst I attempt with more than ordinary diligence
to tear up and eradicate depraved and ancient opinions hostile to the truth
of piety, which the long-continued error of the human race has fixed very
deeply in unenlightened minds; co-operating also in this, according to my
little measure, with the grace of Him who, being the true God, is able to
accomplish it, and on whose help I depend in my work; and, for the sake of
others, such should not deem superfluous what they feel to be no longer
necessary for themselves. A very great matter is at stake when the true and
truly holy divinity is commended to men as that which they ought to seek
after and to worship; not, however, on account of the transitory vapor of
mortal life, but on account of life eternal, which alone is blessed,
although the help necessary for this frail life we are now living is also
afforded us by it.
CHAP. 1.-- WHETHER, SINCE IT IS EVIDENT THAT DEITY IS NOT TO BE FOUND IN
THE CIVIL THEOLOGY, WE ARE TO BELIEVE THAT IT IS TO BE FOUND IN THE SELECT
GODS.
If there is any one whom the sixth book, which I have last finished,
has not persuaded that this divinity, or, so to speak, deity--for this word
also our authors do not hesitate to use, in order to translate more
accurately that which the Greeks call theo'ths;--if there is any one, I
say, whom the sixth book has not persuaded that this divinity or deity is
not to be found in that theology which they call civil, and which Marcus
Varro has explained in sixteen books,--that is, that the happiness of
eternal life is not attainable through the worship of gods such as states
have established to be worshipped, and that in such a form,--perhaps, when
he has read this book, he will not have anything further to desire in order
to the clearing up of this question. For it is possible that some one may
think that at least the select and chief gods, whom Varro comprised in his
last book, and of whom we have not spoken sufficiently, are to be
worshipped on account of the blessed life, which is none other than
eternal. In respect to which matter I do not say what Tertullian said,
perhaps more wittily than truly, "If gods are selected like onions,
certainly the rest are rejected as bad."(1) I do not say this, for I see
that even from among the select, some are selected for some greater and
more excellent office: as in warfare, when recruits have been elected,
there are some again elected from among those for the performance of some
greater military service; and in the church, when persons are elected to be
overseers, certainly the rest are not rejected, since all good Christians
are deservedly called elect; in the erection of a building corner-stones
are elected, though the other stones, which are destined for other parts of
the structure, are not rejected; grapes are elected for eating, whilst the
others, which we leave for drinking, are not rejected. There is no need of
adducing many illustrations, since the thing is evident. Wherefore the
selection of certain gods from among many affords no proper reason why
either he who wrote on this subject, or the worshippers of the gods, or the
gods themselves, should be spurned. We ought rather to seek to know what
gods these are, and for what purpose they may appear to have been selected.
CHAP. 2.--WHO ARE THE SELECT GODS, AND WHETHER THEY ARE HELD TO BE EXEMPT
FROM THE OFFICES OF THE COMMONER GODS.
The following gods, certainly, Varro signalizes as select, devoting one
book to this subject: Janus, Jupiter, Saturn, Genius, Mercury, Apollo,
Mars, Vulcan, Neptune, Sol, Orcus, father Liber, Tellus, Ceres, Juno, Luna,
Diana, Minerva, Venus, Vesta; of which twenty gods, twelve are males, and
eight females. Whether are these deities called select, because of their
higher spheres of administration in the world, or because they have become
better known to the people, and more worship has been expended on them? If
it be on account of the greater works which are performed by them in the
world, we ought not to have found them among that, as it were, plebeian
crowd of deities, which has assigned to it the charge of minute and
trifling things. For, first of all, at the conception of a foetus, from
which point all the works commence which have been distributed in minute
detail to many deities, Janus himself opens the way for the reception of
the seed; there also is Saturn, on account of the seed itself; there is
Liber, who liberates the male by the effusion of the seed; there is
Libera, whom they also would have to be Venus, who confers this same
benefit on the woman, namely, that she also be liberated by the emission of
the seed;--all these are of the number of those who are called select. But
there is also the goddess Mena, who presides over the menses; though the
daughter of Jupiter, ignoble nevertheless. And this province of the menses
the same author, in his book on the select gods, assigns to Juno herself,
who is even queen among the select gods; and here, as Juno Lucina, along
with the same Mena, her stepdaughter, she presides over the same blood.
There also are two gods, exceedingly obscure, Vitumnus and Sentinus--the
one of whom imparts life to the foetus, and the other sensation; and, of a
truth, they bestow, most ignoble though they be, far more than alI those
noble and select gods bestow. For, surely, without life and sensation, what
is the whole foetus which a woman carries in her womb, but a most vile and
worthless thing, no better than slime and dust?
CHAP. 3.--HOW THERE IS NO REASON WHICH CAN BE SHOWN FOR THE SELECTION OF
CERTAIN GODS, WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION OF MORE EXALTED OFFICES IS ASSIGNED
TO MANY INFERIOR GODS.
What is the cause, therefore, which has driven so many select gods to
these very small works, in which they are excelled by Vitumnus and
Sentinus, though little known and sunk in obscurity, inasmuch as they
confer the munificent gifts of life and sensation? For the select Janus
bestows an entrance, and, as it were, a door(2) for the seed; the select
Saturn bestows the seed itself; the select Liber bestows on men the
emission of the same seed; Libera, who is Ceres or Venus, confers the same
on women; the select Juno confers (not alone, but together with Mena, the
daughter of Jupiter) the menses, for the growth of that which has been
conceived; and the obscure and ignoble Vitumnus confers life, whilst the
obscure and ignoble Sentinus confers sensation;--which two last things are
as much more excellent than the others, as they themselves are excelled by
reason and intellect. For as those things which reason and understand are
preferable to those which, without intellect and reason, as in the case of
cattle, live and feel; so also those things which have been endowed with
life and sensation are deservedly preferred to those things which neither
live nor feel. Therefore Vitumnus the life-giver,(3) and Sentinus the
sense-giver,(4) ought to have been reckoned among the select gods, rather
than Janus the admitter of seed, and Saturn the giver or sewer of seed, and
Liber and Libera the movers and liberators of seed; which seed is not worth
a thought, unless it attain to life and sensation. Yet these select gifts
are not given by select gods, but by certain unknown, and, considering
their dignity, neglected gods. But if it be replied that Janus has dominion
over all beginnings, and therefore the opening of the way for conception is
not without reason assigned to him; and that Saturn has dominion over all
seeds, and therefore the sowing of the seed whereby a human being is
generated cannot be excluded from his operation; that Liber and Libera have
power over the emission of all seeds, and therefore preside over those
seeds which pertain to the procreation of men; that Juno presides over all
purgations and births, and therefore she has also charge of the purgations
of women and the births of human beings;--if they give this reply, let them
find an answer to the question concerning Vitumnus and Sentinus, whether
they are willing that these likewise should have dominion over all things
which live and feel. If they grant this, let them observe in how sublime a
position they are about to place them. For to spring from seeds is in the
earth and of the earth, but to live and feel are supposed to be properties
even of the sidereal gods. But if they say that only such things as come to
life in flesh, and are supported by senses, are assigned to Sentinus, why
does not that God who made all things live and feel, bestow on flesh also
life and sensation, in the universality of His operation conferring also on
foe-ruses this gift? And what, then, is the use of Vitumnus and Sentinus?
But if these, as it were, extreme and lowest things have been committed by
Him who presides universally over life and sense to these gods as to
servants, are these select gods then so destitute of servants, that they
could not find any to whom even they might commit those things, but with
all their dignity, for which they are, it seems, deemed worthy to be
selected, were compelled to perform their work along with ignoble ones?
Juno is select queen of the gods, and the sister and wife of Jupiter;
nevertheless she is Iterduca, the conductor, to boys, and performs this
work along with a most ignoble pair--the goddesses Abeona and Adeona. There
they have also placed the goddess Mena, who gives to boys a good mind, and
she is not placed among the select gods; as if anything greater could be
bestowed on a man than a good mind. But Juno is placed among the select
because she is Iterduca and Domiduca (she who conducts one on a journey,
and who conducts him home again); as if it is of any advantage for one to
make a journey, and to be conducted home again, if his mind is not good.
And yet the goddess who bestows that gift has not been placed by the
selectors among the select gods, though she ought indeed to have been
preferred even to Minerva, to whom, in this minute distribution of work,
they have allotted the memory of boys. For who will doubt that it is a far
better thing to have a good mind, than ever so great a memory? For no one
is bad who has a good mind;(1) but some who are very bad are possessed of
an admirable memory, and are so much the worse, the less they are able to
forget the bad things which they think. And yet Minerva is among the select
gods, whilst the goddess Mena is hidden by a worthless crowd. What shall I
say concerning Virtus? What concerning Felicitas?--concerning whom I have
already spoken much in the fourth book;(2) to whom, though they held them
to be goddesses, they have not thought fit to assign a place among the
select gods, among whom they have given a place to Mars and Orcus, the one
the causer of death, the other the receiver of the dead.
Since, therefore, we see that even the select gods themselves work
together with the others, like a senate with the people, in all those
minute works which have been minutely portioned out among many gods; and
since we find that far greater and better things are administered by
certain gods who have not been reckoned worthy to be selected than by those
who are called select, it remains that we suppose that they were called
select and chief, not on account of their holding more exalted offices in
the world, but because it happened to them to become better known to the
people. And even Varro himself says, that in that way obscurity had fallen
to the lot of some father gods and mother goddesses,(3) as it fails to the
lot of man. If, therefore, Felicity ought not perhaps to have been put
among the select gods, because they did not attain to that noble position
by merit, but by chance, Fortune at least should have been placed among
them, or rather before them; for they say that that goddess distributes to
every one the gifts she receives, not according to any rational
arrangement, but according as chance may determine. She ought to have held
the uppermost place among the select gods, for among them chiefly it is
that she shows what power she has. For we see that they have been selected
not on account of some eminent virtue or rational happiness, but by that
random power of Fortune which the worshippers of these gods think that she
exerts. For that most eloquent man Sallust also may perhaps have the gods
themselves in view when he says: "But, in truth, fortune rules in
everything; it renders all things famous or obscure, according to caprice
rather than according to truth."(4) For they cannot discover a reason why
Venus should have been made famous, whilst Virtus has been made obscure,
when the divinity of both of them has been solemnly recognized by them, and
their merits are not to be compared. Again, if she has deserved a noble
position on account of the fact that she is much sought after--for there
are more who seek after Venus than after Virtus--why has Minerva been
celebrated whilst Pecunia has been left in obscurity, although throughout
the whole human race avarice allures a far greater number than skill? And
even among those who are skilled in the arts, you will rarely find a man
who does not practise his own art for the purpose of pecuniary gain; and
that for the sake of which anything is made, is always valued more than
that which is made for the sake of something else. If, then, this selection
of gods has been made by the judgment of the foolish multitude, why has not
the goddess Pecunia been preferred to Minerva, since there are many
artificers for the sake of money? But if this distinction has been made by
the few wise, why has Virtus been preferred to Venus, when reason by far
prefers the former? At all events, as I have already said, Fortune herself-
-who, according to those who attribute most influence to her, renders all
things famous or obscure according to caprice rather than according to the
truth--since she has been able to exercise so much power even over the
gods, as, according to her capricious judgment, to render those of them
famous whom she would, and those obscure whom she would; Fortune herself
ought to occupy the place of pre-eminence among the select gods, since over
them also she has such pre-eminent power. Or must we suppose that the
reason why she is not among the select is simply this, that even. Fortune
herself has had an adverse fortune? She was adverse, then, to herself,
since, whilst ennobling others, she herself has remained obscure.
CHAP. 4.--THE INFERIOR GODS, WHOSE NAMES ARE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH INFAMY,
HAVE BEEN BETTER DEALT WITH THAN THE SELECT GODS, WHOSE INFAMIES ARE
CELEBRATED.
However, any one who eagerly seeks for celebrity and renown, might
congratulate those select gods, and call them fortunate, were it not that
he saw that they have been selected more to their injury than to their
honor. For that low crowd of gods have been protected by their very
meanness and obscurity from being overwhelmed with infamy. We laugh,
indeed, when we see them distributed by the mere fiction of human opinions,
according to the special works assigned to them, like those who farm small
portions of the public revenue, or like workmen in the street of the
silversmiths,(1) where one vessel, in order that it may go out perfect,
passes through the hands of many, when it might have been finished by one
perfect workman. But the only reason why the combined skill of many workmen
was thought necessary, was, that it is better that each part of an art
should be learned by a special workman, which can be done speedily and
easily, than that they should all be compelled to be perfect in one art
throughout all its parts, which they could only attain slowly and with
difficulty. Nevertheless there is scarcely to be found one of the non-
select gods who has brought infamy on himself by any crime, whilst there is
scarce any one of the select gods who has not received upon himself the
brand of notable infamy. These latter have descended to the humble works of
the others, whilst the others have not come up to their sublime crimes.
Concerning Janus, there does not readily occur to my recollection anything
infamous; and perhaps he was such an one as lived more innocently than the
rest, and further removed from misdeeds and crimes. He kindly received and
entertained Saturn when he was fleeing; he divided his kingdom with his
guest, so that each of them had a city for himself,(2) the one Janiculum,
and the other Saturnia. But those seekers after every kind of unseemliness
in the worship of the gods have disgraced him, whose life they found to be
less disgraceful than that of the other gods, with an image of monstrous
deformity, making it sometimes with two faces, and sometimes, as it were,
double, with four faces.(3) Did they wish that, as the most of the select
gods had lost shame(4) through the perpetration of shameful crimes, his
greater innocence should be marked by a greater number of faces?(5)
CHAP. 5 .--CONCERNING THE MORE SECRET DOCTRINE OF THE PAGANS, AND
CONCERNING THE PHYSICAL INTERPRETATIONS.
But let us hear their own physical interpretations by which they
attempt to color, as with the appearance of profounder doctrine, the
baseness of most miserable error. Varro, in the first place, commends these
interpretations so strongly as to say, that the ancients invented the
images, badges, and adornments of the gods, in order that when those who
went to the mysteries should see them with their bodily eyes, they might
with the eyes of their mind see the soul of the world, and its parts, that
is, the true gods; and also that the meaning which was intended by those
who made their images with the human form, seemed to be this,--namely, that
the mind of mortals, which is in a human body, is very like to the immortal
mind,(6) just as vessels might be placed to represent the gods, as, for
instance, a wine-vessel might be placed in the temple of Liber, to signify
wine, that which is contained being signified by that which contains. Thus
by an image which had the human form the rational soul was signified,
because the human form is the vessel, as it were, in which that nature is
wont to be contained which they attribute to God, or to the gods. These are
the mysteries of doctrine to which that most learned man penetrated in
order that he might bring them forth to the light. But, O thou most acute
man, hast thou lost among those mysteries that prudence which led thee to
form the sober opinion, that those who first established those images for
the people took away fear from the citizens and added error, and that the
ancient Romans honored the gods more chastely without images? For it was
through consideration of them that thou wast emboldened to speak these
things against the later Romans. For if those most ancient Romans also had
worshipped images, perhaps thou wouldst have suppressed by the silence of
fear all those sentiments (true sentiments, nevertheless) concerning the
folly of setting up images, and wouldst have extolled more loftily, and
more loquaciously, those mysterious doctrines consisting of these vain and
pernicious fictions. Thy soul, so learned and so clever (and for this I
grieve much for thee), could never through these mysteries have reached its
God; that is, the God by whom, not with whom, it was made, of whom it is
not a part, but a work,--that God who is not the soul of all things, but
who made every soul, and in whose light alone every soul is blessed, if it
be not ungrateful for His grace.
But the things which follow in this book will show what is the nature
of these mysteries, and what value is to be set upon them. Meanwhile, this
most learned man confesses, as his opinion that the soul of the world and
its parts are the true gods, from which we perceive that his theology (to
wit, that same natural theology to which he pays great regard) has been
able, in its completeness, to extend itself even to the nature of the
rational soul. For in this book (concerning the select gods) he says a very
few things by anticipation concerning the natural theology; and we shall
see whether he has been able in that book, by means of physical
interpretations, to refer to this natural theology that civil theology,
concerning which he wrote last when treating of the select gods. Now, if he
has been able to do this, the whole is natural; and in that case, what need
was there for distinguishing so carefully the civil from the natural? But
if it has been distinguished by a veritable distinction, then, since not
even this natural theology with which he is so much pleased is true (for
though it has reached as far as the soul, it has not reached to the true
God who made the soul), how much more contemptible and false is that civil
theology which is chiefly occupied about what is corporeal, as will be
shown by its very interpretations, which they have with such diligence
sought out and enucleated, some of which I must necessarily mention !
CHAP. 6.--CONCERNING THE OPINION OF VARRO, THAT GOD IS THE SOUL OF THE
WORLD, WHICH NEVERTHELESS, IN ITS VARIOUS PARTS, HAS MANY SOULS WHOSE
NATURE IS DIVINE.
The same Varro, then, still speaking by anticipation, says that he
thinks that God is the soul of the world (which the Greeks call ko'smos),
and that this world itself is God; but as a wise man, though he consists of
body and mind, is nevertheless called wise on account of his mind, so the
world is called God on account of mind, although it consists of mind and
body. Here he seems, in some fashion at least, to acknowledge one God; but
that he may introduce more, he adds that the world is divided into two
parts, heaven and earth, which are again divided each into two parts,
heaven into ether and air, earth into water and land, of all which the
ether is the highest, the air second, the water third, and the earth the
lowest. All these four parts, he says, are full of souls; those which are
in the ether and air being immortal, and those which are in the water and
on the earth mortal. From the highest part of the heavens to the orbit of
the moon there are souls, namely, the stars and planets; and these are not
only understood to be gods, but are seen to be such. And between the orbit
of the moon and the commencement of the region of clouds and winds there
are aerial souls; but these are seen with the mind, not with the eyes, and
are called Heroes, and Lares, and Genii. This is the natural theology which
is briefly set forth in these anticipatory statements, and which satisfied
not Varro only, but many philosophers besides. This I must discuss more
carefully, when, with the help of God, I shall have completed what I have
yet to say concerning the civil theology, as far as it concerns the select
gods.
CHAP. 7.--WHETHER IT IS REASONABLE TO SEPARATE JANUS AND TERMINUS AS TWO
DISTINCT DEITIES.
Who, then, is Janus, with whom Varro commences? He is the world.
Certainly a very brief and unambiguous reply. Why, then, do they say that
the beginnings of things pertain to him, but the ends to another whom they
call Terminus? For they say that two months have been dedicated to these
two gods, with reference to beginnings and ends--January to Janus, and
February to Terminus-over and above those ten months which commence with
March and end with December. And they say that that is the reason why the
Terminalia are celebrated in the month of February, the same month in which
the sacred purification is made which they call Februum, and from which the
month derives its name.[1] Do the beginnings of things, therefore, pertain
to the world, which is Janus, and not also the ends, since another god has
been placed over them? Do they not own that all things which they say begin
in this world also come to an end in this world? What folly it is, to give
him only half power in work, when in his image they give him two faces!
Would it not be a far more elegant way of interpreting the two-faced image,
to say that Janus and Terminus are the same, and that the one face has
reference to beginnings, the other to ends? For one who works ought to have
respect to both. For he who in every forthputting of activity does not look
back on the beginning, does not look forward to the end. Wherefore it is
necessary that prospective intention be connected with retrospective
memory. For how shall one find how to finish anything, if he has forgotten
what it was which he had begun? But if they thought that the blessed life
is begun in this world, and perfected beyond the world, and for that reason
attributed to Janus, that is, to the world, only the power of beginnings,
they should certainly have preferred Terminus to him, and should not have
shut him out from the number of the select gods. Yet even now, when the
beginnings and ends of temporal things are represented by these two gods,
more honor ought to have been given to Terminus. For the greater joy is
that which is felt when anything is finished; but things begun are always
cause of much anxiety until they are brought to an end, which end he who
begins anything very greatly longs for, fixes his mind on, expects,
desires; nor does any one ever rejoice over anything he has begun, unless
it be brought to an end.
CHAP. 8.--FOR WHAT REASON THE WORSHIPPERS OF JANUS HAVE MADE HIS IMAGE WITH
TWO FACES, WHEN THEY WOULD SOMETIMES HAVE IT BE SEEN WITH FOUR.
But now let the interpretation of the two-faced image be produced. For
they say that it has two faces, one before and one behind, because our
gaping mouths seem to resemble the world: whence the Greeks call the palate
ourano's, and some Latin poets,[2] he says, have called the heavens palatum
[the palate]; and from the gaping mouth, they say, there is a way out in
the direction of the teeth, and a way in in the direction of the gullet.
See what the world has been brought to on account of a Greek or a poetical
word for our palate! Let this god be worshipped only on account of saliva,
which has two open doorways under the heavens of the palate,--one through
which part of it may be spitten out, the other through which part of it may
be swallowed down. Besides, what is more absurd than not to find in the
world itself two doorways opposite to each other, through which it may
either receive anything into itself, or cast it out from itself; and to
seek of our throat and gullet, to which the world has no resemblance, to
make up an image of the world in Janus, because the world is said to
resemble the palate, to which Janus bears no likeness? But when they make
him four-faced, and call him double Janus, they interpret this as having
reference to the four quarters of the world, as though the world looked out
on anything, like Janus through his four faces. Again, if Janus is the
world, and the world consists of four quarters, then the image of the two-
faced Janus is false. Or if it is true, because the whole world is
sometimes understood by the expression east and west, will any one call the
world double when north and south also are mentioned, as they call Janus
double when he has four faces? They have no way at all of interpreting, in
relation to the world, four doorways by which to go in and to come out as
they did in the case of the two-faced Janus, where they found, at any rate
in the human mouth, something which answered to what they said about him;
unless perhaps Neptune come to their aid, and hand them a fish, which,
besides the mouth and gullet, has also the openings of the gills, one on
each side. Nevertheless, with all the doors, no soul escapes this vanity
but that one which hears the truth saying, "I am the door. "[3]
CHAP. 9.--CONCERNING THE POWER OF JUPITER, AND A COMPARISON OF JUPITER WITH
JANUS.
But they also show whom they would have Jove (who is also called
Jupiter) understood to be. He is the god, say they, who has the power of
the causes by which anything comes to be in the world. And how great a
thing this is, that most noble verse of Virgil testifies:
"Happy is he who has learned the causes of things."[4]
But why is Janus preferred to him? Let that most acute and most learned man
answer us this question. "Because," says he, "Janus has dominion over first
things, Jupiter over highest[1] things. Therefore Jupiter is deservedly
held to be the king of all things; for highest things are better than first
things: for although first things precede in time, highest things excel by
dignity."
Now this would have been rightly said had the first parts of things
which are done been distinguished from the highest parts; as, for instance,
it is the beginning of a thing done to set out, the highest part to arrive.
The commencing to learn is the first part of a thing begun, the acquirement
of knowledge is the highest part. And so of all things: the beginnings are
first, the ends highest. This matter, however, has been already discussed
in connection with Janus and Terminus. But the causes which are attributed
to Jupiter are things effecting, not things effected; and it is impossible
for them to be prevented in time by things which are made or done, or by
the beginnings of such things; for the thing which makes is always prior
to the thing which is made. Therefore, though the beginnings of things
which are made or done pertain to Janus, they are nevertheless not prior to
the efficient causes which they attribute to Jupiter. For as nothing takes
place without being preceded by an efficient cause, so without an efficient
cause nothing begins to take place. Verily, if the people call this god
Jupiter, in whose power are all the causes of all natures which have been
made, and of all natural things, and worship him with such insults and
infamous criminations, they are guilty of more shocking sacrilege than if
they should totally deny the existence of any god. It would therefore be
better for them to call some other god by the name of Jupiter--some one
worthy of base and criminal honors; substituting instead of Jupiter some
vain fiction (as Saturn is said to have had a stone given to him to devour
instead of his son,) which they might make the subject of their
blasphemies, rather than speak of that god as both thundering and
committing adultery, -- ruling the whole world, and laying himself out for
the commission of so many licentious acts,-having in his power nature and
the highest causes of all natural things, but not having his own causes
good.
Next, I ask what place they find any longer for this Jupiter among the
gods, if Janus is the world; for Varro defined the true gods to be the soul
of the world, and the parts of it. And therefore whatever falls not within
this definition, is certainly not a true god, according to them. Will they
then say that Jupiter is the soul of the world, and Janus the body --that
is, this visible world? If they say this, it will not be possible for them
to affirm that Janus is a god. For even, according to them, the body of the
world is not a god, but the soul of the world and its parts. Wherefore
Varro, seeing this, says that he thinks God is the soul of the world, and
that this world itself is God; but that as a wise man though he consists of
soul and body, is nevertheless called wise from the soul, so the world is
called God from the soul, though it consists of soul and body. Therefore
the body of the world alone is not God, but either the soul of it alone, or
the soul and the body together, yet so as that it is God not by virtue of
the body, but by virtue of the soul. If, therefore, Janus is the world, and
Janus is a god, will they say, in order that Jupiter may be a god, that he
is some part of Janus? For they are wont rather to attribute universal
existence to Jupiter; whence the saying, "All things are full of
Jupiter."[2] Therefore they must think Jupiter also, in order that he may
be a god, and especially king of the gods, to be the world, that he may
rule over the other gods--according to them, his parts. To this effect,
also, the same Varro expounds certain verses of Valerius Soranus[3] in that
book which he wrote apart from the others concerning the worship of the
gods. These are the verses:
"Almighty Jove, progenitor of kings, and things, and gods,
And eke the mother of the gods, god one and all."
But in the same book he expounds these verses by saying that as the male
emits seed, and the female receives it, so Jupiter, whom they believed to
be the world, both emits all seeds from himself and receives them into
himself. For which reason, he says, Soranus wrote, "Jove, progenitor and
mother;" and with no less reason said that one and all were the same. For
the world is one, and in that one are all things.
CHAP. 10.--WHETHER THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN JANUS AND JUPITER IS A PROPER
ONE.
Since, therefore, Janus is the world, and Jupiter is the world,
wherefore are Janus and Jupiter two gods, while the world is but one? Why
do they have separate temples, separate altars, different rites, dissimilar
images? If it be because the nature of beginnings is one, and the nature of
causes another, and the one has received the name of Janus, the other of
Jupiter; is it then the case, that if one man has two distinct offices of
authority, or two arts, two judges or two artificers are spoken of, because
the nature of the offices or the arts is different? So also with respect to
one god: if he have the power of beginnings and of causes, must he
therefore be thought to be two gods, because beginnings and causes are two
things? But if they think that this is right, let them also affirm that
Jupiter is as many gods as they have given him surnames, on account of many
powers; for the things from which these surnames are applied to him are
many and diverse. I shall mention a few of them.
CHAP. 11 -- CONCERNING THE SURNAMES OF JUPITER, WHICH ARE REFERRED NOT TO
MANY GODS, BUT TO ONE AND THE SAME GOD.
They have called him Victor, Invictus, Opitulus, Impulsor, Stator,
Centumpeda, Supinalis, Tigillus, Almus, Ruminus, and other names which it
were long to enumerate. But these surnames they have given to one god on
account of diverse causes and powers, but yet have not compelled him to be,
on account of so many things, as many gods. They gave him these surnames
because he conquered all things; because he was conquered by none; because
he brought help to the needy; because he had the power of impelling,
stopping, stablishing, throwing on the back; because as a beam[1] he held
together and sustained the world; because he nourished all things; because,
like the pap,[2] he nourished animals. Here, we perceive, are some great
things and some small things; and yet it is one who is said to perform them
all. I think that the causes and the beginnings of things, on account of
which they have thought that the one world is two gods, Jupiter and Janus,
are nearer to each other than the holding together of the world, and the
giving of the pap to animals; and yet, on account of these two works so far
apart from each other, both in nature and dignity, there has not been any
necessity for the existence of two gods; but one Jupiter has been called,
on account of the one Tigillus, on account of the other Ruminus. I am
unwilling to say that the giving of the pap to sucking animals might have
become Juno rather than Jupiter, especially when there was the goddess
Rumina to help and to serve her in this work; for I think it may be replied
that Juno herself is nothing else than Jupiter, according to those verses
of Valerius Soranus, where it has been said:
"Almighty Jove, progenitor of kings, and things, and gods,
And eke the mother of the gods," etc.
Why, then, was he called Ruminus, when they who may perchance inquire more
diligently may find that he is also that goddess Rumina?
If, then, it was rightly thought unworthy of the majesty of the gods,
that in one ear of corn one god should have the care of the joint, another
that of the husk, how much more unworthy of that majesty is it, that one
thing, and that of the lowest kind, even the giving of the pap to animals
that they may be nourished, should be under the care of two gods, one of
whom is Jupiter himself, the very king of all things, who does this not
along with his own wife, but with some ignoble Rumina (unless perhaps he
himself is Rumina, being Ruminus for males and Rumina for females)! I
should certainly have said that they had been unwilling to apply to Jupiter
a feminine name, had he not been styled in these verses "progenitor and
mother," and had I not read among other surnames of his that of Pecunia
[money], which we found as a goddess among those petty deities, as I have
already mentioned in the fourth book. But since both males and females have
money [pecuniam], why has he not been called both Pecunius and Pecunia?
That is their concern.
CHAP. 12.--THAT JUPITER IS ALSO CALLED PECUNIA.
How elegantly they have accounted for this name! "He is also called
Pecunia," say they, "because all things belong to him." Oh how grand an
explanation of the name of a deity! Yes; he to whom all things belong is
most meanly and most contumeliously called Pecunia. In comparison of all
things which are contained by heaven and earth, what are all things
together which are possessed by men under the name of money?[3] And this
name, forsooth, hath avarice given to Jupiter, that whoever was a lover of
money might seem to himself to love not an ordinary god, but the very king
of all things himself. But it would be a far different thing if he had been
called Riches. For riches are one thing, money another. For we call rich
the wise, the just, the good, who have either no money or very little. For
they are more truly rich in possessing virtue, since by it, even as
respects things necessary for the body, they are content with what they
have. But we call, the greedy poor, who are always craving and always
wanting. For they may possess ever so great an amount of money; but
whatever be the abundance of that, they are not able but to want. And we
properly call God Himself rich; not, however, in money, but in omnipotence.
Therefore they who have abundance of money are called rich, but inwardly
needy if they are greedy. So also, those who have no money are called poor,
but inwardly rich if they are wise.
What, then, ought the wise man to think of this theology, in which the
king of the gods receives the name of that thing "which no wise man has
desired?"[1] For had there been anything wholesomely taught by this
philosophy concerning eternal life, how much more appropriately would that
god who is the ruler of the world have been called by them, not money, but
wisdom, the love of which purges from the filth of avarice, that is, of the
love of money!
CHAP. 13. -- THAT WHEN IT IS EXPOUNDED WHAT SATURN IS, WHAT GENIUS IS, IT
COMES TO THIS, THAT BOTH OF THEM ARE SHOWN TO BE JUPITER.
But why speak more of this Jupiter, with whom perchance all the rest
are to be identified; so that, he being all, the opinion as to the
existence of many gods may remain as a mere opinion, empty of all truth?
And they are all to be referred to him, if his various parts and powers are
thought of as so many gods, or if the principle of mind which they think to
be diffused through all things has received the names of many gods from the
various parts which the mass of this visible world combines in itself, and
from the manifold administration of nature. For what is Saturn also? "One
of the principal gods," he says, "who has dominion over all sowings."
Does not the exposition of the verses of Valerius Soranus teach that
Jupiter is the world, and that he emits all seeds from himself, and
receives them into himself?
It is he, then, with whom is the dominion of all sowings. What is
Genius? "He is the god who is set over, and has the power of begetting, all
things." Who else than the world do they believe to have this power, to
which it has been said:
"Almighty Jove, progenitor and mother?"
And when in another place he says that Genius is the rational soul of every
one, and therefore exists separately in each individual, but that the
corresponding soul of the world is God, he just comes back to this same
thing, --namely, that the soul of the world itself is to be held to be, as
it were, the universal genius. This, therefore, is what he calls Jupiter.
For if every genius is a god, and the soul of every man a genius, it
follows that the soul of every man is a god. But if very absurdity compels
even these theologists themselves to shrink from this, it remains that they
call that genius god by special and pre-eminent distinction, whom they call
the soul of the world, and therefore Jupiter.
CHAP. 14.--CONCERNING THE OFFICES OF MERCURY AND MARS.
But they have not found how to refer Mercury and Mars to any parts of
the world, and to the works of God which are in the elements; and therefore
they have set them at least over human works, making them assistants in
speaking and in carrying on wars. Now Mercury, if he has also the power of
the speech of the gods, rules also over the king of the gods himself, if
Jupiter, as he receives from him the faculty of speech, also speaks
according as it is his pleasure to permit him --which surely is absurd; but
if it is only the power over human speech which is held to be attributed to
him, then we say it is incredible that Jupiter should have condescended to
give the pap not only to children, but also to beasts--from which he has
been surnamed Ruminus--and yet should have been unwilling that the care of
our speech, by which we excel the beasts, should pertain to him. And thus
speech itself both belongs to Jupiter, and is Mercury. But if speech itself
is said to be Mercury, as those things which are said concerning him by way
of interpretation show it to be;--for he is said to have been called
Mercury, that is, he who runs between,[2] because speech runs between men:
they say also that the Greeks call him Hermh^s, because speech, or
interpretation, which certainly belongs to speech, is called by them
hermhnei'a: also he is said to preside over payments, because speech passes
between sellers and buyers: the wings, too, which he has on his head and
on his feet, they say mean that speech passes winged through the air: he is
also said to have been called the messenger,[3] because by means of speech
all our thoughts are expressed;[4]--if, therefore, speech itself is
Mercury, then, even by their own confession, he is not a god. But when they
make to themselves gods of such as are not even demons, by praying to
unclean spirits, they are possessed by such as are not gods, but demons. In
like manner, because they have not been able to find for Mars any element
or part of the world in which he might perform some works of nature of
whatever kind, they have said that he is the god of war, which is a work of
men, and that not one which is considered desirable by them. If, therefore,
Felicitas should give perpetual peace, Mars would have nothing to do. But
if war itself is Mars, as speech is Mercury, I wish it were as true that
there were no war to be falsely called a god, as it is true that it is not
a god.
CHAP. 15.--CONCERNING CERTAIN STARS WHICH THE PAGANS HAVE CALLED BY THE
NAMES OF THEIR GODS.
But possibly these stars which have been called by their names are
these gods. For they call a certain star Mercury, and likewise a certain
other star Mars. But among those stars which are called by the names of
gods, is that one which they call Jupiter, and yet with them Jupiter is the
world. There also is that one they call Saturn, and yet they give to him no
small property besides,--namely, all seeds. There also is that brightest of
them all which is called by them Venus, and yet they will have this same
Venus to be also the moon:--not to mention how Venus and Juno are said by
them to contend about that most brilliant star, as though about another
golden apple. For some say that Lucifer belongs to Venus, and some to Juno.
But, as usual, Venus conquers. For by far the greatest number assign that
star to Venus, so much so that there is scarcely found one of them who
thinks otherwise. But since they call Jupiter the king of all, who will not
laugh to see his star so far surpassed in brilliancy by the star of Venus?
For it ought to have been as much more brilliant than the rest, as he
himself is more powerful. They answer that it it only appears so because it
is higher up, and very much farther away from the earth. If, therefore, its
greater dignity has deserved a higher place, why is Saturn higher in the
heavens than Jupiter? was the vanity of the fable which made Jupiter king
not able to reach the stars? And has Saturn been permitted to obtain at
least in the heavens, what he could not obtain in his own kingdom nor in
the Capitol?
But why has Janus received no star? If it is because he is the world,
and they are all in him, the world is also Jupiter's, and yet he has one.
Did Janus compromise his case as best he could, and instead of the one star
which he does not have among the heavenly bodies, accept so many faces on
earth? Again, if they think that on account of the stars alone Mercury
and Mars are parts of the world, in order that they may be able to have
them for gods, since speech and war are not parts of the world, but acts of
men, how is it that they have made no altars, established no rites, built
no temples for Aries, and Taurus, and Cancer, and Scorpio, and the rest
which they number as the celestial signs, and which consist not of single
stars, but each of them of many stars, which also they say are situated
above those already mentioned in the highest part of the heavens, where a
more constant motion causes the stars to follow an undeviating course? And
why have they not reckoned them as gods, I do not say among those select
gods, but not even among those, as it were, plebeian gods?
CHAP. 16.--CONCERNING APOLLO AND DIANA, AND THE OTHER SELECT GODS WHOM THEY
WOULD HAVE TO BE PARTS OF THE WORLD.
Although they would have Apollo to be a diviner and physician, they
have nevertheless given him a place as some part of the world. They have
said that he is also the sun; and likewise they have said that Diana, his
sister, is the moon, and the guardian of roads. Whence also they will have
her be a virgin, because a road brings forth nothing. They also make both
of them have arrows, because those two planets send their rays from the
heavens to the earth. They make Vulcan to be the fire of the world; Neptune
the waters of the world; Father Dis, that is, Orcus, the earthy and lowest
part of the world. Liber and Ceres they set over seeds,--the former over
the seeds of males, the latter over the seeds of females; or the one over
the fluid part of seed, but the other over the dry part. And all this
together is referred to the world, that is, to Jupiter, who is called
"progenitor and mother," because he emitted all seeds from himself, and
received them into himself. For they also make this same Ceres to be the
Great Mother, who they say is none other than the earth, and call her also
Juno. And therefore they assign to her the second causes of things,
notwithstanding that it has been said to Jupiter, "progenitor and mother of
the gods;" because, according to them, the whole world itself is Jupiter's.
Minerva, also, because they set her over human arts, and did not find even
a star in which to place her, has been said by them to be either the
highest ether, or even the moon. Also Vesta herself they have thought to be
the highest of the goddesses, because she is the earth; although they have
thought that the milder fire of the world, which is used for the ordinary
purposes of human life, not the more violent fire, such as belongs to
Vulcan, is to be as- signed to her. And thus they will have all those
select gods to be the world and its parts, --some of them the whole world,
others of them its parts; the whole of it Jupiter,--its parts, Genius,
Mater Magna, Sol and Luna, or rather Apollo and Diana, and so on. And
sometimes they make one god many things; sometimes one thing many gods.
Many things are one god in the case of Jupiter; for both the whole world is
Jupiter, and the sky alone is Jupiter, and the star alone is said and held
to be Jupiter. Juno also is mistress of second causes,--Juno is the air,
Juno is the earth; and had she won it over Venus, Juno would have been the
star. Likewise Minerva is the highest ether, and Minerva is likewise the
moon, which they suppose to be in the lowest limit of the ether. And also
they make one thing many gods in this way. The world is both Janus and
Jupiter; also the earth is Juno, and Mater Magna, and Ceres.
CHAP. 17. --THAT EVEN VARRO HIMSELF PRONOUNCED HIS OWN OPINIONS REGARDING
THE GODS AMBIGUOUS
And the same is true with respect to all the rest, as is true with
respect to those things which I have mentioned for the sake of example.
They do not explain them, but rather involve them. They rush hither and
thither, to this side or to that, according as they are driven by the
impulse of erratic opinion; so that even Varro himself has chosen rather to
doubt concerning all things, than to affirm anything. For, having written
the first of the three last books concerning the certain gods, and having
commenced in the second of these to speak of the uncertain gods, he says:
"I ought not to be censured for having stated in this book the doubtful
opinions concerning the gods. For he who, when he has read them, shall
think that they both ought to be, and can be, conclusively judged of, will
do so himself. For my own part, I can be more easily led to doubt the
things which I have written in the first book, than to attempt to reduce
all the things I shall write in this one to any orderly system." Thus he
makes uncertain not only that book concerning the uncertain gods, but also
that other concerning the certain gods. Moreover, in that third book
concerning the select gods, after having exhibited by anticipation as much
of the natural theology as he deemed necessary, and when about to commence
to speak of the vanities and lying insanities of the civil theology, where
he was not only without the guidance of the truth of things, but was also
pressed by the authority of tradition, he says: "I will write in this book
concerning the public gods of the Roman people, to whom they have dedicated
temples, and whom they have conspicuously distinguished by many adornments;
but, as Xenophon of Colophon writes, I will state what I think, not what I
am prepared to maintain: it is for man to think those things, for God to
know them."
It is not, then, an account of things comprehended and most certainly
believed which he promised, when about to write those things which were
instituted by men. He only timidly promises an account of things which are
but the subject of doubtful opinion. Nor, indeed, was it possible for him
to affirm with the same certainty that Janus was the world, and such like
things; or to discover with the same certainty such things as how Jupiter
was the son of Saturn, while Saturn was made subject to him as king:--he
could, I say, neither affirm nor discover such things with the same
certainty with which he knew such things as that the world existed, that
the heavens and earth existed, the heavens bright with stars, and the earth
fertile through seeds; or with the same perfect conviction with which he
believed that this universal mass of nature is governed and administered by
a certain invisible and mighty force.
CHAP. 18.--A MORE CREDIBLE CAUSE OF THE RISE OF PAGAN ERROR.
A far more credible account of these gods is given, when it is said
that they were men, and that to each one of them sacred rites and
solemnities were instituted, according to his particular genius, manners,
actions, circumstances; which rites and solemnities, by gradually creeping
through the souls of men, which are like demons, and eager for things which
yield them sport, were spread far and wide; the poets adorning them with
lies, and false spirits seducing men to receive them. For it is far more
likely that some youth, either impious himself, or afraid of being slain by
an impious father, being desirous to reign, dethroned his father, than that
(according to Varro's interpretation) Saturn was overthrown by his son
Jupiter: for cause, which belongs to Jupiter, is before seed, which belongs
to Saturn. For had this been so, Saturn would never have been before
Jupiter, nor would he have been the father of Jupiter. For cause always
precedes seed, and is never generated from seed. But when they seek to
honor by natural interpretation most vain fables or deeds of men, even the
acutest men are so perplexed that we are compelled to grieve for their
folly also.
CHAP. 19.--CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATIONS WHICH COMPOSE THE REASON OF THE
WORSHIP OF SATURN.
They said, says Varro, that Saturn was wont to devour all that sprang
from him, because seeds returned to the earth from whence they sprang. And
when it is said that a lump of earth was put before Saturn to be devoured
instead of Jupiter, it is signified, he says, that before the art of
ploughing was discovered, seeds were buried in the earth by the hands of
men. The earth itself, then, and not seeds, should have been called Saturn,
because it in a manner devours what it has brought forth, when the seeds
which have sprung from it return again into it. And what has Saturn's
receiving of a lump of earth instead of Jupiter to do with this, that the
seeds were covered in the soil by the hands of men? Was the seed kept from
being devoured, like other things, by being covered with the soil? For what
they say would imply that he who put on the soil took away the seed, as
Jupiter is said to have been taken away when the lump of soil was offered
to Saturn instead of him, and not rather that the soil, by covering the
seed, only caused it to be devoured the more eagerly. Then, in that way,
Jupiter is the seed, and not the cause of the seed, as was said a little
before.
But what shall men do who cannot find anything wise to say, because
they are interpreting foolish things? Saturn has a pruning-knife. That,
says Varro, is on account of agriculture. Certainly in Saturn's reign there
as yet existed no agriculture, and therefore the former times of Saturn
are spoken of, because, as the same Varro interprets the fables, the
primeval men lived on those seeds which the earth produced spontaneously.
Perhaps he received a pruning-knife when he had lost his sceptre; that he
who had been a king, and lived at ease during the first part of his time,
should become a laborious workman whilst his son occupied the throne. Then
he says that boys were wont to be immolated to him by certain peoples, the
Carthaginians for instance; and also that adults were immolated by some
nations, for example the Gauls--because, of all seeds, the human race is
the best. What need we say more concerning this most cruel vanity. Let us
rather attend to and hold by this, that these interpretations are not
carried up to the true God,--a living, incorporeal, unchangeable nature,
from whom a blessed life enduring for ever may be obtained,--but that they
end in things which are corporeal, temporal, mutable, and mortal. And
whereas it is said in the fables that Saturn castrated his father Coelus,
this signifies, says Varro, that the divine seed belongs to Saturn, and not
to Coelus; for this reason, as far as a reason can be discovered, namely,
that in heaven(1) nothing is born from seed. But, lo! Saturn, if he is the
son of Coelus, is the son of Jupiter. For they affirm times without number,
and that emphatically, that the heavens(2) are Jupiter. Thus those things
which come not of the truth, do very often, without being impelled by any
one, themselves overthrow one another. He says that Saturn was called
Kronos, which in the Greek tongue signifies a space of time,(3) because,
without that, seed cannot be productive. These and many other things are
said concerning Saturn, and they are all referred to seed. But Saturn
surely, with all that great power, might have sufficed for seed. Why are
other gods demanded for it, especially Liber and Libera, that is, Ceres?--
concerning whom again, as far as seed is concerned, he says as many things
as if he had said nothing concerning Saturn.
CHAP. 20.--CONCERNING THE RITES OF ELEUSINIAN CERES.
Now among the rites of Ceres, those Eleusinian rites are much famed
which were in the highest repute among the Athenians, of which Varro offers
no interpretation except with respect to corn, which Ceres discovered, and
with respect to Proserpine, whom Ceres lost, Orcus having carried her away.
And this Proserpine herself, he says, signifies the fecundity of seeds. But
as this fecundity departed at a certain season, whilst the earth wore an
aspect of sorrow through the consequent sterility, there arose an opinion
that the daughter of Ceres, that is, fecundity itself, who was called
Proserpine, from proserpere (to creep forth, to spring), had been carried
away by Orcus, and detained among the inhabitants of the nether world;
which circumstance was celebrated with public mourning. But since the same
fecundity again returned, there arose joy because Proserpine had been given
back by Orcus, and thus these rites were instituted. Then Varro adds, that
many things are taught in the mysteries of Ceres which only refer to the
discovery of fruits.
CHAP. 21.--CONCERNING THE SHAMEFULNESS OF THE RITES WHICH ARE CELEBRATED IN
HONOR OF LIBER.
Now as to the rites of Liber, whom they have set over liquid seeds, and
therefore not only over the liquors of fruits, among which wine holds, so
to speak, the primacy, but also over the seeds of animals:--as to these
rites, I am unwilling to undertake to show to what excess of turpitude they
had reached, because that would entail a lengthened discourse, though I am
not unwilling to do so as a demonstration of the proud stupidity of those
who practise them. Among other rites which I am compelled from the
greatness of their number to omit, Varro says that in Italy, at the places
where roads crossed each other the rites of Liber were celebrated with such
unrestrained turpitude, that the private parts of a man were worshipped in
his honor. Nor was this abomination transacted in secret that some regard
at least might be paid to modesty, but was openly and wantonly displayed.
For during the festival of Liber this obscene member, placed on a car, was
carried with great honor, first over the crossroads in the country, and
then into the city. But in the town of Lavinium a whole month was devoted
to Liber alone, during the days of which all the people gave themselves up
to the must dissolute conversation, until that member had been carried
through the forum and brought to rest in its own place; on which unseemly
member it was necessary that the most honorable matron should place a
wreath in the presence of all the people. Thus, forsooth, was the god Liber
to be appeased in order to the growth of seeds. Thus was enchantment to be
driven away from fields, even by a matron's being compelled to do in public
what not even a harlot ought to be permitted to do in a theatre, if there
were matrons among the spectators. For these reasons, then, Saturn alone
was not believed to be sufficient for seeds,--namely, that the impure mind
might find occasions for multiplying the gods; and that, being righteously
abandoned to uncleanness by the one true God, and being prostituted to the
worship of many false gods, through an avidity for ever greater and greater
uncleanness, it should call these sacrilegious rites sacred things, and
should abandon itself to be violated and polluted by crowds of foul demons.
CHAP. 22.--CONCERNING NEPTUNE, AND SALACIA AND VENILIA.
Now Neptune had Salacia to wife, who they say is the nether waters of
the sea. Wherefore was Venilia also joined to him? Was it not simply
through the lust of the soul desiring a greater number of demons to whom to
prostitute itself, and not because this goddess was necessary to the
perfection of their sacred rites? But let the interpretation of this
illustrious theology be brought forward to restrain us from this censuring
by rendering a satisfactory reason. Venilia, says this theology, is the
wave which comes to the shore, Salacia the wave which returns into the sea.
Why, then, are there two goddesses, when it is one wave which comes and
returns? Certainly it is mad lust itself, which in its eagerness for many
deities resembles the waves which break on the shore. For though the water
which goes is not different from that which returns, still the soul which
goes and returns not is defiled by two demons, whom it has taken occasion
by this false pretext to invite. I ask thee, O Varro, and you who have read
such works of learned men, and think ye have learned something great,--I
ask you to interpret this, I do not say In a manner consistent with the
eternal and unchangeable nature which alone is God, but only in a manner
consistent with the doctrine concerning the soul of the world and its
parts, which ye think to be the true gods. It is a somewhat more tolerable
thing that ye have made that part of the soul of the world which pervades
the sea your god Neptune. Is the wave, then, which comes to the shore and
returns to the main, two parts of the world, or two parts of the soul of
the world? Who of you is so silly as to think so? Why, then, have they made
to you two goddesses? The only reason seems to be, that your wise ancestors
have provided, not that many gods should rule you, but that many of such
demons as are delighted with those vanities and falsehoods should possess
you. But why has that Salacia, according to this interpretation, lost the
lower part of the sea, seeing that she was represented as subject to her
husband? For in saying that she is the receding wave, ye have put her on
the surface. Was she enraged at her husband for taking Venilia as a
concubine, and thus drove him from the upper part of the sea?
CHAP. 23.--CONCERNING THE EARTH, WHICH VARRO AFFIRMS TO BE A GODDESS,
BECAUSE THAT SOUL OF THE WORLD WHICH HE THINKS TO BE GOD PERVADES ALSO THIS
LOWEST PART OF HIS BODY, AND IMPARTS TO IT A DIVINE FORCE.
Surely the earth, which we see full of its own living creatures, is
one; but for all that, it is but a mighty mass among the elements, and the
lowest part of the world. Why, then, would they have it to be a goddess? Is
it because it is fruitful? Why, then, are not men rather held to be gods,
who render it fruitful by cultivating it; but though they plough it, do not
adore it? But, say they, the part of the soul of the world which pervades
it makes it a goddess. As if it were not a far more evident thing, nay, a
thing which is not called in question, that there is a soul in man. And yet
men are not held to be gods, but (a thing to be sadly lamented), with
wonderful and pitiful delusion, are subjected to those who are not gods,
and than whom they themselves are better, as the objects of deserved
worship and adoration. And certainly the same Varro, in the book concerning
the select gods, affirms that there are three grades of soul in universal
nature. One which pervades all the living parts of the body, and has not
sensation, but only the power of life,--that principle which penetrates
into the bones, nails and hair. By this principle in the world trees are
nourished, and grow without being possessed of sensation, and live in a
manner peculiar to themselves. The second grade of soul is that in which
there is sensation. This principle penetrates into the eyes, ears,
nostrils, mouth, and the organs of sensation. The third grade of soul is
the highest, and is called mind, where intelligence has its throne. This
grade of soul no mortal creatures except man are possessed of. Now this
part of the soul of the world, Varro says, is called God, and in us is
called Genius. And the stones and earth in the world, which we see, and
which are not pervaded by the power of sensation, are, as it were, the
bones and nails of God Again, the sun, moon, and stars, which we perceive,
and by which He perceives, are His organs of perception. Moreover, the
ether is His mind; and by the virtue which is in it, which penetrates into
the stars, it also makes them gods; and because it penetrates through them
into the earth, it makes it the goddess Tellus, whence again it enters and
permeates the sea and ocean, making them the god Neptune.
Let him return from this, which he thinks to be natural theology, back
to that from which he went out, in order to rest from the fatigue
occasioned by the many turnings and windings of his path. Let him return, I
say, let him return to the civil theology. I wish to detain him there a
while. I have somewhat to say which has to do with that theology. I am not
yet saying, that if the earth and stones are similar to our bones and
nails, they are in like manner devoid of intelligence, as they are devoid
of sensation. Nor am I saying that, if our bones and nails are said to have
intelligence, because they are in a man who has intelligence, he who says
that the things analogous to these in the world are gods, is as stupid as
he is who says that our bones and nails are men. We shall perhaps have
occasion to dispute these things with the philosophers. At present,
however, I wish to deal with Varro as a political theologian. For it is
possible that, though he may seem to have wished to lift up his head, as it
were, into the liberty of natural theology, the consciousness that the book
with which he was occupied was one concerning a subject belonging to civil
theology, may have caused him to relapse into the point of view of that
theology, and to say this in order that the ancestors of his nation, and
other states, might not be believed to have bestowed on Neptune an
irrational worship. What I am to say is this: Since the earth is one, why
has not that part of the soul of the world which permeates the earth made
it that one goddess which he calls Tellus? But had it done so, what then
had become of Orcus, the brother of Jupiter and Neptune, whom they call
Father Dis?(1) And where, in that case, had been his wife Proserpine, who,
according to another opinion given in the same book, is called, not the
fecundity of the earth, but its lower part?(2) But if they say that part of
the soul of the world, when it permeates the upper part of the earth, makes
the god Father Dis, but when it pervades the nether part of the same the
goddess Proserpine; what, in that case, will that Tellus be? For all that
which she was has been divided into these two parts, and these two gods; so
that it is impossible to find what to make or where to place her as a third
goddess, except it be said that those divinities Orcus and Proserpine are
the one goddess Tellus, and that they are not three gods, but one or two,
whilst notwithstanding they are called three, held to be three, worshipped
as three, having their own several altars, their own shrines, rites,
images, priests, whilst their own false demons also through these things
defile the prostituted soul. Let this further question be answered: What
part of the earth does a part of the soul of the world permeate in order to
make the god Tellumo? No, says he; but the earth being one and the same,
has a double life,--the masculine, which produces seed, and the feminine,
which receives and nourishes the seed. Hence it has been called Tellus from
the feminine principle, and Tellumo from the masculine. Why, then, do the
priests, as he indicates, perform divine service to four gods, two others
being added,--namely, to Tellus, Tellumo, Altor, and Rusor? We have already
spoken concerning Tellus and Tellumo. But why do they worship Altor?(1)
Because, says he, all that springs of the earth is nourished by the earth.
Wherefore do they worship Rusor?(2) Because all things return back again to
the place whence they proceeded.
CHAP. 24.--CONCERNING THE SURNAMES OF TELLUS AND THEIR SIGNIFICATIONS,
WHICH, ALTHOUGH THEY INDICATE MANY PROPERTIES, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE
ESTABLISHED THE OPINION THAT THERE IS A CORRESPONDING NUMBER OF GODS.
The one earth, then, on account of this fourfold virtue, ought to have
had four surnames, but not to have been considered as four gods,--as
Jupiter and Juno, though they have so many surnames, are for all that only
single deities,--for by all these surnames it is signified that a manifold
virtue belongs to one god or to one goddess; but the multitude of surnames
does not imply a multitude of gods. But as sometimes even the vilest women
themselves grow tired of those crowds which they have sought after under
the impulse of wicked passion, so also the soul, become vile, and
prostituted to impure spirits, sometimes begins to loathe to multiply to
itself gods to whom to surrender itself to be polluted by them, as much as
it once delighted in so doing. For Varro himself, as if ashamed of that
crowd of gods, would make Tellus to be one goddess. "They say," says he,
"that whereas the one great mother has a tympanum, it is signified that she
is the orb of the earth; whereas she has towers on her head, towns are
signified; and whereas seats are fixed round about her, it is signified
that whilst all things move, she moves not. And their having made the Galli
to serve this goddess, signifies that they who are in need of seed ought to
follow the earth for in it all seeds are found. By their throwing
themselves down before her, it is taught," he says, "that they who
cultivate the earth should not sit idle, for there is always something for
them to do. The sound of the cymbals signifies the noise made by the
throwing of iron utensils, and by men's hands, and all other noises
connected with agricultural operations; and these cymbals are of brass,
because the ancients used brazen utensils in their agriculture before iron
was discovered. They place beside the goddess an unbound and tame lion, to
show that there is no kind of land so wild and so excessively barren as
that it would be profitless to attempt to bring it in and cultivate it."
Then he adds that, because they gave many names and surnames to mother
Tellus, it came to be thought that these signified many gods. "They think,"
says he, "that Tellus is Ops, because the earth is improved by labor;
Mother, because it brings forth much; Great, because it brings forth seed;
Proserpine, because fruits creep forth from it; Vesta, because it is
invested with herbs. And thus," says he, "they not at all absurdly identify
other goddesses with the earth." If, then, it is one goddess (though, if
the truth were consulted, it is not even that), why do they nevertheless
separate it into many? Let there be many names of one goddess, and let
there not be as many goddesses as there are names.
But the authority of the erring ancients weighs heavily on Varro, and
compels him, after having expressed this opinion, to show signs of
uneasiness; for he immediately adds, "With which things the opinion of the
ancients, who thought that there were really many goddesses, does not
conflict." How does it not conflict, when it is entirely a different thing
to say that one goddess has many names, and to say that there are many
goddesses? But it is possible, he says, that the same thing may both be
one, and yet have in it a plurality of things. I grant that there are many
things in one man; are there therefore in him many men? In like manner, in
one goddess there are many things; are there therefore also many goddesses?
But let them divide, unite, multiply, reduplicate, and implicate as they
like.
These are the famous mysteries of Tellus and the Great Mother, all of
which are shown to have reference to mortal seeds and to agriculture. Do
these things, then,--namely, the tympanum, the towers, the Galli, the
tossing to and fro of limbs, the noise of cymbals, the images of lions,--do
these things, having this reference and this end, promise eternal life? Do
the mutilated Galli, then, serve this Great Mother in order to signify that
they who are in need of seed should follow the earth, as though it were not
rather the case that this very service caused them to want seed? For
whether do they, by following this goddess, acquire seed, being in want of
it, or, by following her, lose seed when they have it? Is this to interpret
or to deprecate? Nor is it considered to what a degree malign demons have
gained the upper hand, inasmuch as they have been able to exact such cruel
rites without having dared to promise any great things in return for them.
Had the earth not been a goddess, men would have, by laboring, laid their
hands on it in order to obtain seed through it, and would not have laid
violent hands on themselves in order to lose seed on account of it. Had it
not been a goddess, it would have become so fertile by the hands of others,
that it would not have compelled a man to be rendered barren by his own
hands; nor that in the festival of Liber an honorable matron put a wreath
on the private parts of a man in the sight of the multitude, where perhaps
her husband was standing by blushing and perspiring, if there is any shame
left in men; and that in the celebration of marriages the newly-married
bride was ordered to sit upon Priapus. These things are bad enough, but
they are small and contemptible in comparison with that most cruel
abomination, or most abominable cruelty, by which either set is so deluded
that neither perishes of its wound. There the enchantment of fields is
feared; here the amputation of members is not feared. There the modesty of
the bride is outraged, but in such a manner as that neither her
fruitfulness nor even her virginity is taken away; here a man is so
mutilated that he is neither changed into a woman nor remains a man.
CHAP. 25.--THE INTERPRETATION OF THE MUTILATION OF ATYS WHICH THE DOCTRINE
OF THE GREEK SAGES SET FORTH.
Varro has not spoken of that Atys, nor sought out any interpretation
for him, in memory of whose being loved by Ceres the Gallus is mutilated.
But the learned and wise Greeks have by no means been silent about an
interpretation so holy and so illustrious. The celebrated philosopher
Porphyry has said that Atys signifies the flowers of spring, which is the
most beautiful season, and therefore was mutilated because the flower falls
before the fruit appears.(1) They have not, then, compared the man himself,
or rather that semblance of a man they called Atys, to the flower, but his
male organs,--these, indeed, fell whilst he was living. Did I say fell?
nay, truly they did not fall, nor were they plucked off, but tom away. Nor
when that flower was lost did any fruit follow, but rather sterility. What,
then, do they say is signified by the castrated Atys himself, and whatever
remained to him after his castration? To what do they refer that? What
interpretation does that give rise to? Do they, after vain endeavors to
discover an interpretation, seek to persuade men that that is rather to be
believed which report has made public, and which has also been written
concerning his having been a mutilated man? Our Varro has very properly
opposed this, and has been unwilling to state it; for it certainly was not
unknown to that most learned man.
CHAP. 26.--CONCERNING THE ABOMINATION OF THE SACRED RITES OF THE GREAT
MOTHER.
Concerning the effeminates consecrated to the same Great Mother, in
defiance of all the modesty which belongs to men and women, Varro has not
wished to say anything, nor do I remember to have read anywhere aught
concerning them. These effeminates, no later than yesterday, were going
through the streets and places of Carthage with anointed hair, whitened
faces, relaxed bodies, and feminine gait, exacting from the people the
means of maintaining their ignominious lives. Nothing has been said
concerning them. Interpretation failed, reason blushed, speech was silent.
The Great Mother has surpassed all her sons, not in greatness of deity, but
of crime. To this monster not even the monstrosity of Janus is to be
compared. His deformity was only in his image; hers was the deformity of
cruelty in her sacred rites. He has a redundancy of members in stone
images; she inflicts the loss of members on men. This abomination is not
surpassed by the licentious deeds of Jupiter, so many and so great. He,
with all his seductions of women, only disgraced heaven with one Ganymede;
she, with so many avowed and public effeminates, has both defiled the earth
and outraged heaven. Perhaps we may either compare Saturn to this Magna
Mater, or even set him before her in this kind of abominable cruelty, for
he mutilated his father. But at the festivals of Saturn, men could rather
be slain by the hands of others than mutilated by their own. He devoured
his sons, as the poets say, and the natural theologists interpret this as
they list. History says he slew them. But the Romans never received, like
the Carthaginians, the custom of sacrificing their sons to him. This Great
Mother of the gods, however, has brought mutilated men into Roman temples,
and has preserved that cruel custom, being believed to promote the strength
of the Romans by emasculating their men. Compared with this evil, what are
the thefts of Mercury, the wantonness of Venus, and the base and flagitious
deeds of the rest of them, which we might bring forward from books, were it
not that they are daily sung and danced in the theatres? But what are these
things to so great an evil,--an evil whose magnitude was only proportioned
to the greatness of the Great Mother,--especially as these are said to have
been invented by the poets? as if the poets had also invented this that
they are acceptable to the gods. Let it be imputed, then, to the audacity
and impudence of the poets that these things have been sung and written of.
But that they have been incorporated into the body of divine rites and
honors, the deities themselves demanding and extorting that incorporation,
what is that but the crime of the gods? nay more, the confession of demons
and the deception of wretched men? But as to this that the Great Mother is
considered to be worshipped in the appropriate form when she is worshipped
by the consecration of mutilated men, this is not an invention of the
poets, nay, they have rather shrunk from it with horror than sung of it.
Ought any one, then, to be consecrated to these select gods, that he may
live blessedly after death, consecrated to whom he could not live decently
before death, being subjected to such foul superstitions, and bound over to
unclean demons? But all these things, says Varro, are to be referred to the
world.(1) Let him consider if it be not rather to the unclean.(2) But why
not refer that to the world which is demonstrated to be in the world? We,
however, seek for a mind which, trusting to true religion, does not adore
the world as its god, but for the sake of God praises the world as a work
of God, and, purified from mundane defilements, comes pure(3) to God
Himself who rounded the world.(4)
CHAP. 27.--CONCERNING THE FIGMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL THEOLOGISTS, WHO NEITHER
WORSHIP THE TRUE DIVINITY, NOR PERFORM THE WORSHIP WHEREWITH THE TRUE
DIVINITY SHOULD BE SERVED.
We see that these select gods have, indeed, become more famous than the
rest; not, however, that their merits may be brought to light, but that
their opprobrious deeds may not be hid. Whence it is more credible that
they were men, as not only poetic but also historical literature has handed
down. For this which Virgil says,
"Then from Olympus' heights came down
Good Saturn, exiled from his throne
By Jove, his mightier heir;"(5)
and what follows with reference to this affair, is fully related by the
historian Euhemerus, and has been translated into Latin by Ennius. And as
they who have written before us in the Greek or in the Latin tongue against
such errors as these have said much concerning this matter, I have thought
it unnecessary to dwell upon it. When I consider those physical reasons,
then, by which learned and acute men attempt to turn human things into
divine things, all I see is that they have been able to refer these things
only to temporal works and to that which has a corporeal nature, and even
though invisible still mutable; and this is by no means the true God. But
if this worship had been performed as the symbolism of ideas at least
congruous with religion, though it would indeed have been cause of grief
that the true God was not announced and proclaimed by its symbolism,
nevertheless it could have been in some degree borne with, when it did not
occasion and command the performance of such foul and abominable things.
But since it is impiety to worship the body or the soul for the true God,
by whose indwelling alone the soul is happy, how much more impious is it to
worship those things through which neither soul nor body can obtain either
salvation or human honor? Wherefore if with temple, priest, and sacrifice,
which are due to the true God, any element of the world be worshipped, or
any created spirit, even though not impure and evil, that worship is still
evil, not because the things are evil by which the worship is performed,
but because those things ought only to be used in the worship of Him to
whom alone such worship and service are due. But if any one insist that he
worships the one true God,--that is, the Creator of every soul and of every
body,--with stupid and monstrous idols, with human victims, with putting a
wreath on the male organ, with the wages of unchastity, with the cutting of
limbs, with emasculation, with the consecration of effeminates, with impure
and obscene plays, such a one does not sin because he worships One who
ought not to be worshipped, but because he worships Him who ought to be
worshipped in a way in which He ought not to be worshipped. But he who
worships with such things,--that is, foul and obscene things,--and that not
the true God, namely, the maker of soul and body, but a creature, even
though not a wicked creature, whether it be soul or body, or soul and body
together, twice sins against God, because he both worships for God what is
not God, and also worships with such things as neither God nor what is not
God ought to be worshipped with. It is, indeed, manifest how these pagans
worship,--that is, how shamefully and criminally they worship; but what or
whom they worship would have been left in obscurity, had not their history
testified that those same confessedly base and foul rites were rendered in
obedience to the demands of the gods, who exacted them with terrible
severity. Wherefore it is evident beyond doubt that this whole civil
theology is occupied in inventing means for attracting wicked and most
impure spirits, inviting them to visit senseless images, and through these
to take possession of stupid hearts.
CHAP. 28.--THAT THE DOCTRINE OF VARRO CONCERNING THEOLOGY IS IN NO PART
CONSISTENT WITH ITSELF.
To what purpose, then, is it that this most learned and most acute man
Varro attempts, as it were, with subtle disputation, to reduce and refer
all these gods to heaven and earth? He cannot do it. They go out of his
hands like water; they shrink back; they slip down and fall. For when
about to speak of the females, that is, the goddesses, he says, "Since, as
I observed in the first book concerning places, heaven and earth are the
two origins of the gods, on which account they are called celestials and
terrestrials, and as I began in tile former books with heaven, speaking of
Janus, whom some have said to be heaven, and others the earth, so I now
commence with Tellus in speaking concerning the goddesses." I can
understand what embarrassment so great a mind was experiencing. For he is
influenced by the perception of a certain plausible resemblance, when he
says that the heaven is that which does, and the earth that which suffers,
and therefore attributes the masculine principle to the one, and the
feminine to the other, not considering that it is rather He who made both
heaven and earth who is the maker of both activity and passivity. On this
principle he interprets the celebrated mysteries of the Samothracians, and
promises, with an air of great devoutness, that he will by writing expound
these mysteries, which have not been so much as known to his countrymen,
and will send them his exposition. Then he says that he had from many
proofs gathered that, in those mysteries, among the images one signifies
heaven, another the earth, another the patterns of things, which Plato
calls ideas. He makes Jupiter to signify heaven, Juno the earth, Minerva
the ideas. Heaven, by which anything is made; the earth, from which it is
made; and the pattern, according to which it is made. But, with respect to
the last, I am forgetting to say that Plato attributed so great an
importance to these ideas as to say, not that anything was made by heaven
according to them, but that according to them heaven itself was made.(1) To
return, however,--it is to be observed that Varro has, in the book on the
select gods, lost that theory of these gods, in whom he has, as it were,
embraced all things. For he assigns the male gods to heaven, the females to
earth; among which latter he has placed Minerva, whom he had before placed
above heaven itself. Then the male god Neptune is in the sea, which
pertains rather to earth than to heaven. Last of all, father Dis, who is
called in Greek Ploutwn, another male god, brother of both (Jupiter and
Neptune), is also held to be a god of the earth, holding the upper region
of the earth himself, and allotting the nether region to his wife
Proserpine. How, then, do they attempt to refer the gods to heaven, and the
goddesses to earth? What solidity, what consistency, what sobriety has this
disputation? But that Tellus is the origin of the goddesses,--the great
mother, to wit, beside whom there is continually the noise of the mad and
abominable revelry of effeminates and mutilated men, and men who cut
themselves, and indulge in frantic gesticulations,--how is it, then, that
Janus is called the head of the gods, and Tellus the head of the goddesses?
In the one case error does not make one head, and in the other frenzy does
not make a sane one. Why do they vainly attempt to refer these to the
world? Even if they could do so, no pious person worships the world for the
true God. Nevertheless, plain truth makes it evident that they are not able
even to do this. Let them rather identify them with dead men and most
wicked demons, and no further question will remain.
CHAP. 29.--THAT ALL THINGS WHICH THE PHYSICAL THEOLOGISTS HAVE REFERRED TO
THE WORLD AND ITS PARTS, THEY OUGHT TO HAVE REFERRED TO THE ONE TRUE GOD.
For all those things which, according to the account given of those
gods, are referred to the world by so-called physical interpretation, may,
without any religious scruple, be rather assigned to the true God, who made
heaven and earth, and created every soul and every body; and the following
is the manner in which we see that this may be done. We worship God,--not
heaven and earth, of which two parts this world consists, nor the soul or
souls diffused through all living things,--but God who made heaven and
earth, and all things which are in them; who made every soul, whatever be
the nature of its life, whether it have life without sensation and reason,
or life with sensation, or life with both sensation and reason.
CHAP. 30.--HOW PIETY DISTINGUISHES THE CREATOR FROM THE CREATURES, SO THAT,
INSTEAD OF ONE GOD, THERE ARE NOT WORSHIPPED AS MANY GODS AS THERE ARE
WORKS OF THE ONE AUTHOR.
And now, to begin to go over those works of the one true God, on
account of which these have made to themselves many and false gods, whilst
they attempt to give an honorable interpretation to their many most
abominable and most infamous mysteries,--We worship that God who has
appointed to the natures created by Him both the beginnings and the end of
their existing and moving; who holds, knows, and disposes the causes of
things; who hath created the virtue of seeds; who hath given to what
creatures He would a rational soul, which is called mind; who hath bestowed
the faculty and use of speech; who hath imparted the gift of foretelling
future things to whatever spirits it seemed to Him good; who also Himself
predicts future things, through whom He pleases, and through whom He will,
removes diseases who, when the human race is to be corrected and chastised
by wars, regulates also the beginnings, progress, and ends of these wars
who hath created and governs the most vehement and most violent fire of
this world, in due relation and proportion to the other elements of immense
nature; who is the governor of all the waters; who hath made the sun
brightest of all material lights, and hath given him suitable power and
motion; who hath not withdrawn, even from the inhabitants of the nether
world, His dominion and power; who hath appointed to mortal natures their
suitable seed and nourishment, dry or liquid; who establishes and makes
fruitful the earth; who bountifully bestows its fruits on animals and on
men; who knows and ordains, not only principal causes, but also subsequent
causes who hath determined for the moon her motion; who affords ways in
heaven and on earth for passage from one place to another; who hath granted
also to human minds, which He hath created, the knowledge of the various
arts for the help of life and nature; who hath appointed the union of male
and female for the propagation of offspring; who hath favored the societies
of men with the gift of terrestrial fire for the simplest and most familiar
purposes, to burn on the hearth and to give light. These are, then, the
things which that most acute and most learned man Varro has labored to
distribute among the select gods, by I know not what physical
interpretation, which he has got from other sources, and also conjectured
for himself. But these things the one true God makes and does, but as the
same God,--that is, as He who is wholly everywhere, included in no space,
bound by no chains, mutable in no part of His being, filling heaven and
earth with omnipresent power, not with a needy nature. Therefore lie
governs all things in such a manner as to allow them to perform and
exercise their own proper movements. For although they can be nothing
without Him, they are not what He is. He does also many things through
angels; but only from Himself does He beatify angels. So also, though He
send angels to men for certain purposes, He does not for all that beatify
men by the good inherent in the angels, but by Himself, as He does the
angels themselves.
CHAP. 31.--WHAT BENEFITS GOD GIVES TO THE FOLLOWERS OF THE TRUTH TO ENJOY
OVER AND ABOVE HIS GENERAL BOUNTY.
For, besides such benefits as, according to this administration of
nature of which we have made some mention, He lavishes on good and bad
alike, we have from Him a great manifestation of great love, which belongs
only to the good. For although we can never sufficiently give thanks to
Him, that we are, that we live, that we behold heaven and earth, that we
have mind and reason by which to seek after Him who made all these things,
nevertheless, what hearts, what number of tongues, shall affirm that they
are sufficient to render thanks to Him for this, that He hath not wholly
departed from us, laden and overwhelmed with sins, averse to the
contemplation of His light, and blinded by the love of darkness, that is,
of iniquity, but hath sent to us His own Word, who is His only Son, that by
His birth and suffering for us in the flesh, which He assumed, we might
know how much God valued man, and that by that unique sacrifice we might
be purified from all our sins, and that, love being shed abroad in our
hearts by His Spirit, we might, having surmounted all difficulties, come
into eternal rest, and the ineffable sweetness of the contemplation of
Himself?
CHAP. 32.--THAT AT NO TIME IN THE PAST WAS THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST'S
REDEMPTION AWANTING, BUT WAS AT ALL TIMES DECLARED, THOUGH IN VARIOUS
FORMS.
This mystery of eternal life, even from the beginning of the human
race, was, by certain signs and sacraments suitable to the times, announced
through angels to those to whom it was meet. Then the Hebrew people was
congregated into one republic, as it were, to perform this mystery; and in
that republic was foretold, sometimes through men who understood what they
spake, and sometimes through men who understood not, all that had
transpired since the advent of Christ until now, and all that will
transpire. This same nation, too, was afterwards dispersed through the
nations, in order to testify to the scriptures in which eternal salvation
in Christ had been declared. For not only the prophecies which are
contained in words, nor only the precepts for the right conduct of life,
which teach morals and piety, and are contained in the sacred writings,--
not only these, but also the rites, priesthood, tabernacle or temple,
altars, sacrifices, ceremonies, and whatever else belongs to that service
which is due to God, and which in Greek is properly called latrei'a,--all
these signified and fore-announced those things which we who believe in
Jesus Christ unto eternal life believe to have been fulfilled, or behold in
process of fulfillment, or confidently believe shall yet be fulfilled.
CHAP. 33.--THAT ONLY THROUGH THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION COULD THE DECEIT OF
MALIGN SPIRITS, WHO REJOICE IN THE ERRORS OF MEN, HAVE BEEN MANIFESTED.
This, the only true religion, has alone been able to manifest that the
gods of the nations are most impure demons, who desire to be thought gods,
availing themselves of the names of certain defunct souls, or the
appearance of mundane creatures, and with proud impurity rejoicing in
things most base and infamous, as though in divine honors, and envying
human souls their conversion to the true God. From whose most cruel and
most impious dominion a man is liberated when he believes on Him who has
afforded an example of humility, following which men may rise as great as
was that pride by which they fell. Hence are not only those gods,
concerning whom we have already spoken much, and many others belonging to
different nations and lands, but also those of whom we are now treating,
who have been selected as it were into the senate of the gods,--selected,
however, on account of the notoriousness of their crimes, not on account of
the dignity of their virtues,--whose sacred things Varro tempts to refer to
certain natural reasons, seeking to make base things honorable, but cannot
find how to square and agree with these reasons, because these are not the
causes of those rites, which he thinks, or rather wishes to be thought to
be so. For had not only these, but also all others of this kind, been real
causes, even though they had nothing to do with the true God and eternal
life, which is to be sought in religion, they would, by affording some sort
of reason drawn from the nature of things, have mitigated in some degree
that offence which was occasioned by some turpitude or absurdity in the
sacred rites, which was not understood. This he attempted to do in respect
to certain fables of the theatres, or mysteries of the shrines; but he did
not acquit the theatres of likeness to the shrines, but rather condemned
the shrines for likeness to the theatres. However, he in some way made the
attempt to soothe the feelings shocked by horrible things, by rendering
what he would have to be natural interpretations.
CHAP. 34.--CONCERNING THE BOOKS OF NUMA POMPILIUS, WHICH THE SENATE ORDERED
TO BE BURNED, IN ORDER THAT THE CAUSES OF SACRED RIGHTS THEREIN ASSIGNED
SHOULD NOT BECOME KNOWN.
But, on the other hand, we find, as the same most learned man has
related, that the causes of the sacred rites which were given from the
books of Numa Pompilius could by no means be tolerated, and were considered
unworthy, not only to become known to the religious by being read, but even
to lie written in the darkness in which they had been concealed. For now
let me say what I promised in the third book of this work to say in its
proper place. For, as we read in the same Varro's book on the worship of
the gods, "A certain one Terentius had a field at the Janiculum, and once,
when his ploughman was passing the plough near to the tomb of Numa
Pompilius, he turned up from the ground the books of Numa, in which were
written the causes of the sacred institutions; which books he carried to
the praetor, who, having read the beginnings of them, referred to the
senate what seemed to be a matter of so much importance. And when the chief
senators had read certain of the causes why this or that rite was
instituted, the senate assented to the dead Numa, and the conscript
fathers, as though concerned for the interests of religion, ordered the
praetor to burn the books."(1) Let each one believe what he thinks; nay,
let every champion of such impiety say whatever mad contention may suggest.
For my part, let it suffice to suggest that the causes of those sacred
things which were written down by King Numa Pompilius, the institutor of
the Roman rites, ought never to have become known to people or senate, or
even to the priests themselves; and also that Numa himself attained to
these secrets of demons by an illicit curiosity, in order that he might
write them down, so as to be able, by reading, to be reminded of them.
However, though he was king, and had no cause to be afraid of any one, he
neither dared to teach them to any one, nor to destroy them by
obliteration, or any other form of destruction. Therefore, because he was
unwilling that any one should know them, lest men should be taught infamous
things, and because he was afraid to violate them, lest he should enrage
the demons against himself, he buried them in what he thought a safe place,
believing that a plough could not approach his sepulchre. But the senate,
fearing to condemn the religious solemnities of their ancestors, and
therefore compelled to assent to Numa, were nevertheless so convinced that
those books were pernicious, that they did not order them to be buried
again, knowing that human curiosity would thereby be excited to seek with
far greater eagerness after the matter already divulged, but ordered the
scandalous relics to be destroyed with fire; because, as they thought it
was now a necessity to perform those sacred rites, they judged that the
error arising from ignorance of their causes was more tolerable than the
disturbance which the knowledge of them would occasion the state.
CHAP. 35.--CONCERNING THE HYDROMANCY THROUGH WHICH NUMA WAS BEFOOLED BY
CERTAIN IMAGES OF DEMONS SEEN IN THE WATER.
For Numa himself also, to whom no prophet, of God, no holy angel was
sent, was driven to have recourse to hydromancy, that he might see the
images of the gods in the water (or, rather, appearances whereby the demons
made sport of him), and might learn from them what he ought to ordain and
observe in the sacred rites. This kind of divination, says Varro, was
introduced from the Persians, and was used by Numa himself, and at an after
time by the philosopher Pythagoras. In this divination, he says, they also
inquire at the inhabitants of the nether world, and make use of blood; and
this the Greeks call nekromantei'an. But whether it be called necromancy or
hydromancy it is the same thing, for in either case the dead are supposed
to foretell future things. But by what artifices these things are done, let
themselves consider; for I am unwilling to say that these artifices were
wont to be prohibited by the laws, and to be very severely punished even in
the Gentile states, before the advent of our Saviour. I am unwilling, I
say, to affirm this, for perhaps even such things were then allowed.
However, it was by these arts that Pompilius learned those sacred rites
which he gave forth as facts, whilst he concealed their causes; for even he
himself was afraid of that which he had learned. The senate also caused the
books in which those causes were recorded to be burned. What is it, then,
to me, that Varro attempts to adduce all sorts of fanciful physical
interpretations, which if these books had contained, they would certainly
not have been burned? For otherwise the conscript fathers would also have
burned those books which Varro published and dedicated to the high priest
Caesar.(1) Now Numa is said to have married the nymph Egeria, because (as
Varro explains it in the forementioned book) he carried forth(2) water
wherewith to perform his hydromancy. Thus facts are wont to he converted
into fables through false colorings. It was by that hydromancy, then, that
that over-curious Roman king learned both the sacred rites which were to be
written in the books of the priests, and also the causes of those rites,--
which latter, however, he was unwilling that any one besides himself should
know. Wherefore he made these causes, as it were, to die along with
himself, taking care to have them written by themselves, and removed from
the knowledge of men by being buried in the earth. Wherefore the things
which are written in those books were either abominations of demons, so
foul and noxious as to render that whole civil theology execrable even in
the eyes of such men as those senators, who had accepted so many shameful
things in the sacred rites themselves, or they were nothing else than the
accounts of dead men, whom, through the lapse of ages, almost all the
Gentile nations had come to believe to be immortal gods; whilst those same
demons were delighted even with such rites, having presented themselves to
receive worship under pretence of being those very dead men whom they had
caused to be thought immortal gods by certain fallacious miracles,
performed in order to establish that belief. But, by the hidden providence
of the true God, these demons were permitted to confess these things to
their friend Numa, having been gained by those arts through which
necromancy could be performed, and yet were not constrained to admonish him
rather at his death to burn than to bury the books in which they were
written. But, in order that these books might be unknown, the demons could
not resist the plough by which they were thrown up, or the pen of Varro,
through which the things which were done in reference to this matter have
come down even to our knowledge. For they are not able to effect anything
which they are not allowed; but they are permitted to influence those whom
God, in His deep and just judgment, according to their deserts, gives over
either to be simply afflicted by them, or to be also subdued and deceived.
But how pernicious these writings were judged to be, or how alien from the
worship of the true Divinity, may be understood from the fact that the
senate preferred to burn what Pompilius had hid, rather than to fear what
he feared, so that he could not dare to do that. Wherefore let him who does
not desire to live a pious life even now, seek eternal life by means of
such rites. But let him who does not wish to have fellowship with malign
demons have no fear for the noxious superstition wherewith they are
worshipped, but let him recognize the true religion by which they are
unmasked and vanquished.
BOOK VIII.
ARGUMENT: AUGUSTIN COMES NOW TO THE THIRD KIND OF THEOLOGY, THAT IS, THE
NATURAL, AND TAKES UP THE QUESTION, WHETHER THE WORSHIP OF THE GODS OF THE
NATURAL THEOLOGY IS OF ANY AVAIL TOWARDS SECURING BLESSEDNESS IN THE LIFE
TO COME. THIS QUESTION HE PREFERS TO DISCUSS WITH THE PLATONISTS, BECAUSE
THE PLATONIC SYSTEM IS "FACILE PRINCEPS" AMONG PHILOSOPHIES, AND MAKES THE
NEAREST APPROXIMATION TO CHRISTIAN TRUTH. IN PURSUING THIS ARGUMENT, HE
FIRST REFUTES APULEIUS, AND ALL WHO MAINTAIN THAT THE DEMONS SHOULD BE
WORSHIPPED AS MESSENGERS AND MEDIATORS BETWEEN GODS AND MEN; DEMONSTRATING
THAT BY NO POSSIBILITY CAN MEN BE RECONCILED TO GOOD GODS BY DEMONS, WHO
ARE THE SLAVES OF VICE, AND WHO DELIGHT IN AND PATRONIZE WHAT GOOD AND WISE
MEN ABHOR AND CONDEMN,--THE BLASPHEMOUS FICTIONS OF POETS, THEATRICAL
EXHIBITIONS, AND MAGICAL ARTS.
CHAP. 1.--THAT THE QUESTION OF NATURAL THEOLOGY IS TO BE DISCUSSED WITH
THOSE PHILOSOPHERS WHO SOUGHT A MORE EXCELLENT WISDOM.
We shall require to apply our mind with far greater intensity to the
present question than was requisite in the solution and unfolding of the
questions handled in the preceding books; for it is not with ordinary men,
but with philosophers that we must confer concerning the theology which
they call natural. For it is not like the fabulous, that is, the
theatrical; nor the civil, that is, the urban theology: the one of which
displays the crimes of the gods, whilst the other manifests their criminal
desires, which demonstrate them to be rather malign demons than gods. It
is, we say, with philosophers we have to confer with respect to this
theology,--men whose very name, if rendered into Latin, signifies those who
profess the love of wisdom. Now, if wisdom is God, who made all things, as
is attested by the divine authority and truth,(1) then the philosopher is a
lover of God. But since the thing itself, which is called by this name,
exists not in all who glory in the name,--for it does not follow, of
course, that all who are called philosophers are lovers of true wisdom,--we
must needs select from the number of those with whose opinions we have been
able to acquaint ourselves by reading, some with whom we may not unworthily
engage in the treatment of this question. For I have not in this work
undertaken to refute all the vain opinions of the philosophers, but only
such as pertain to theology, which Greek word we understand to mean an
account or explanation of the divine nature. Nor, again, have I undertaken
to refute all the vain theological opinions of all the philosophers, but
only of such of them as, agreeing in the belief that there is a divine
nature, and that this divine nature is concerned about human affairs, do
nevertheless deny that the worship of the one unchangeable God is
sufficient for the obtaining of a blessed life after death, as well as at
the present time; and hold that, in order to obtain that life, many gods,
created, indeed, and appointed to their several spheres by that one God,
are to be worshipped. These approach nearer to the truth than even Varro;
for, whilst he saw no difficulty in extending natural theology in its
entirety even to the world and the soul of the world, these acknowledge God
as existing above all that is of the nature of soul, and as the Creator not
only of this visible world, which is often called heaven and earth, but
also of every soul whatsoever, and as Him who gives blessedness to the
rational soul,--of which kind is the human soul,--by participation in His
own unchangeable and incorporeal light. There is no one, who has even a
slender knowledge of these things, who does not know of the Platonic
philosophers, who derive their name from their master Plato. Concerning
this Plato, then, I will briefly state such things as I deem necessary to
the present question, mentioning beforehand those who preceded him in time
in the same department of literature.
CHAP. 2.--CONCERNING THE TWO SCHOOLS OF PHILOSOPHERS, THAT IS, THE ITALIC
AND IONIC, AND THEIR FOUNDERS.
As far as concerns the literature of the Greeks, whose language holds a
more illustrious place than any of the languages of the other nations,
history mentions two schools of philosophers, the one called the Italic
school, originating in that part of Italy which was formerly called Magna
Graecia; the other called the Ionic school, having its origin in those
regions which are still called by the name of Greece. The Italic school had
for its founder Pythagoras of Samos, to whom also the term "philosophy" is
said to owe its origin. For whereas formerly those who seemed to excel
others by the laudable manner in which they regulated their lives were
called sages, Pythagoras, on being asked what he professed, replied that he
was a philosopher, that is, a student or lover of wisdom; for it seemed to
him to be the height of arrogance to profess oneself a sage.(1) The founder
of the Ionic school, again, was Thales of Miletus, one of those seven who
were styled the "seven sages," of whom six were distinguished by the kind
of life they lived, and by certain maxims which they gave forth for the
proper conduct of life. Thales was distinguished as an investigator into
the nature of things; and, in order that he might have successors in his
school, he committed his dissertations to writing. That, however, which
especially rendered him eminent was his ability, by means of astronomical
calculations, even to predict eclipses of the sun and moon. He thought,
however, that water was the first principle of things, and that of it all
the elements of the world, the world itself, and all things which are
generated in it, ultimately consist. Over all this work, however, which,
when we consider the world, appears so admirable, he set nothing of the
nature of divine mind. To him succeeded Anaximander, his pupil, who held a
different opinion concerning the nature of things; for he did not hold that
all things spring from one principle, as Thales did, who held that
principle to be water, but thought that each thing springs from its own
proper principle. These principles of things he believed to be infinite in
number, and thought that they generated innumerable worlds, and all the
things which arise in them. He thought, also, that these worlds are subject
to a perpetual process of alternate dissolution and regeneration, each one
continuing for a longer or shorter period of time, according to the nature
of the case; nor did he, any more than Thales, attribute anything to a
divine mind in the production of all this activity of things. Anaximander
left as his successor his disciple Anaximenes, who attributed all the
causes of things to an infinite air. He neither denied nor ignored the
existence of gods, but, so far from believing that the air was made by
them, he held, on the contrary, that they sprang from the air. Anaxagoras,
however, who was his pupil, perceived that a divine mind was the productive
cause of all things which we see, and said that all the various kinds of
things, according to their several modes and species, were produced out of
an infinite matter consisting of homogeneous particles, but by the
efficiency of a divine mind. Diogenes, also, another pupil of Anaximenes,
said that a certain air was the original substance of things out of which
all things were produced, but that it was possessed of a divine reason,
without which nothing could be produced from it. Anaxagoras was succeeded
by his disciple Archelaus, who also thought that all things consisted of
homogeneous particles, of which each particular thing was made, but that
those particles were pervaded by a divine mind, which perpetually energized
all the eternal bodies, namely, those particles, so that they are
alternately united and separated. Socrates, the master of Plato, is said to
have been the disciple of Archelaus; and on Plato's account it is that I
have given this brief historical sketch of the whole history of these
schools.
CHAP. 3.--OF THE SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.
Socrates is said to have been the first who directed the entire effort
of philosophy to the correction and regulation of manners, all who went
before him having expended their greatest efforts in the investigation of
physical, that is, natural phenomena. However, it seems to me that it
cannot be certainly discovered whether Socrates did this because he was
wearied of obscure and uncertain things, and so wished to direct his mind
to the discovery of something manifest and certain, which was necessary in
order to the obtaining of a blessed life,--that one great object toward
which the labor, vigilance, and industry of all philosophers seem to have
been directed,--or whether (as some yet more favorable to him suppose) he
did it because he was unwilling that minds defiled with earthly desires
should essay to raise themselves upward to divine things. For he saw that
the causes of things were sought for by them,--which causes he believed to
be ultimately reducible to nothing else than the will of the one true and
supreme God,--and on this account he thought they could only be
comprehended by a purified mind; and therefore that all diligence ought to
be given to the purification of the life by good morals, in order that the
mind, delivered from the depressing weight of lusts, might raise itself
upward by its native vigor to eternal things, and might, with purified
understanding, contemplate that nature which is incorporeal and
unchangeable light, where live the causes of all created natures. It is
evident, however, that he hunted out and pursued, with a wonderful
pleasantness of style and argument, and with a most pointed and insinuating
urbanity, the foolishness of ignorant men, who thought that they knew this
or that,--sometimes confessing his own ignorance, and sometimes
dissimulating his knowledge, even in those very moral questions to which he
seems to have directed the whole force of his mind. And hence there arose
hostility against him, which ended in his being calumniously impeached, and
condemned to death. Afterwards, however, that very city of the Athenians,
which had publicly condemned him, did publicly bewail him,--the popular
indignation having turned with such vehemence on his accusers, that one of
them perished by the violence of the multitude, whilst the other only
escaped a like punishment by voluntary and perpetual exile.
Illustrious, therefore, both in his life and in his death, Socrates
left very many disciples of his philosophy, who vied with one another in
desire for proficiency in handling those moral questions which concern the
chief good (summum bonum), the possession of which can make a man blessed;
and because, in the disputations of Socrates, where he raises all manner of
questions, makes assertions, and then demolishes them, it did not evidently
appear what he held to be the chief good, every one took from these
disputations what pleased him best, and every one placed the final good(1)
in whatever it appeared to himself to consist. Now, that which is called
the final good is that at which, when one has arrived, he is blessed. But
so diverse were the opinions held by those followers of Socrates concerning
this final good, that (a thing scarcely to be credited with respect to the
followers of one master) some placed the chief good in pleasure, as
Aristippus, others in virtue, as Antisthenes. Indeed, it were tedious to
recount the various opinions of various disciples.
CHAP. 4.--CONCERNING PLATO, THE CHIEF AMONG THE DISCIPLES OF SOCRATES, AND
HIS THREEFOLD DIVISION OF PHILOSOPHY.
But, among the disciples of Socrates, Plato was the one who shone with
a glory which far excelled that of the others, and who not unjustly
eclipsed them all. By birth, an Athenian of honorable parentage, he far
surpassed his fellow-disciples in natural endowments, of which he was
possessed in a wonderful degree. Yet, deeming himself and the Socratic
discipline far from sufficient for bringing philosophy to perfection, he
travelled as extensively as he was able, going to every place famed for the
cultivation of any science of which he could make himself master. Thus he
learned from the Egyptians whatever they held and taught as important; and
from Egypt, passing into those parts of Italy which were filled with the
fame of the Pythagoreans, he mastered, with the greatest facility, and
under the most eminent teachers, all the Italic philosophy which was then
in vogue. And, as he had a peculiar love for his master Socrates, he made
him the speaker in all his dialogues, putting into his mouth whatever he
had learned, either from others, or from the efforts of his own powerful
intellect, tempering even his moral disputations with the grace and
politeness of the Socratic style. And, as the study of wisdom consists in
action and contemplation, so that one part of it may be called active, and
the other contemplative,--the active part having reference to the conduct
of life, that is, to the regulation of morals, and the contemplative part
to the investigation into the causes of nature and into pure truth,--
Socrates is said to have excelled in the active part of that study, while
Pythagoras gave more attention to its contemplative part, on which he
brought to bear all the force of his great intellect. To Plato is given the
praise of having perfected philosophy by combining both parts into one. He
then divides it into three parts,--the first moral, which is chiefly
occupied with action; the second natural, of which the object is
contemplation; and the third rational, which discriminates between the true
and the false. And though this last is necessary both to action and
contemplation, it is contemplation, nevertheless, which lays peculiar claim
to the office of investigating the nature of truth. Thus this tripartite
division is not contrary to that which made the study of wisdom to consist
in action and contemplation. Now, as to what Plato thought with respect to
each of these parts,--that is, what he believed to be the end of all
actions, the cause of all natures, and the light of all intelligences,--it
would be a question too long to discuss, and about which we ought not to
make any rash affirmation. For, as Plato liked and constantly affected the
well-known method of his master Socrates, namely, that of dissimulating his
knowledge or his opinions, it is not easy to discover dearly what he
himself thought on various matters, any more than it is to discover what
were the real opinions of Socrates. We must, nevertheless, insert into our
work certain of those opinions which he expresses in his writings, whether
he himself uttered them, or narrates them as expressed by others, and seems
himself to approve of,--opinions sometimes favorable to the true religion,
which our faith takes up and defends, and sometimes contrary to it, as, for
example, in the questions concerning the existence of one God or of many,
as it relates to the truly blessed life which is to be after death. For
those who are praised as having most closely followed Plato, who is justly
preferred to all the other philosophers of the Gentiles, and who are said
to have manifested the greatest acuteness in understanding him, do perhaps
entertain such an idea of God as to admit that in Him are to be found the
cause of existence, the ultimate reason for the understanding, and the end
in reference to which the whole life is to be regulated. Of which three
things, the first is understood to pertain to the natural, the second to
the rational, and the third to the moral part of philosophy. For if man has
been so created as to attain, through that which is most excellent in him,
to that which excels all things,--that is, to the one true and absolutely
good God, without whom no nature exists, no doctrine instructs, no exercise
profits,--let Him be sought in whom all things are secure to us, let Him be
discovered in whom all truth becomes certain to us, let Him be loved in
whom all becomes right to us.
CHAP. 5.--THAT IT IS ESPECIALLY WITH THE PLATONISTS THAT WE MUST CARRY ON
OUR DISPUTATIONS ON MATTERS OF THEOLOGY, THEIR OPINIONS BEING PREFERABLE TO
THOSE OF ALL OTHER PHILOSOPHERS.
If, then, Plato defined the wise man as one who imitates, knows, loves
this God, and who is rendered blessed through fellowship with Him in His
own blessedness, why discuss with the other philosophers? It is evident
that none come nearer to us than the Platonists. To them, therefore, let
that fabulous theology give place which delights the minds of men with the
crimes of the gods; and that civil theology also, in which impure demons,
under the name of gods, have seduced the peoples of the earth given up to
earthly pleasures, desiring to be honored by the errors of men, and by
filling the minds of their worshippers with impure desires, exciting them
to make the representation of their crimes one of the rites of their
worship, whilst they themselves found in the spectators of these
exhibitions a most pleasing spectacle,--a theology in which, whatever was
honorable in the temple, was defiled by its mixture with the obscenity of
the theatre, and whatever was base in the theatre was vindicated by the
abominations of the temples. To these philosophers also the interpretations
of Varro must give place, in which he explains the sacred rites as having
reference to heaven and earth, and to the seeds and operations of
perishable things; for, in the first place, those rites have not the
signification which he would have men believe is attached to them, and
therefore truth does not follow him in his attempt so to interpret them;
and even if they had this signification, still those things ought not to be
worshipped by the rational soul as its god which are placed below it in the
scale of nature, nor ought the soul to prefer to itself as gods things to
which the true God has given it the preference. The same must be said of
those writings pertaining to the sacred rites, which Numa Pompilius took
care to conceal by causing them to be buried along with himself, and which,
when they were afterwards turned up by the plough, were burned by order of
the senate. And, to treat Numa with all honor, let us mention as belonging
to the same rank as these writings that which Alexander of Macedon wrote to
his mother as communicated to him by Leo, an Egyptian high priest. In this
letter not only Picus and Faunus, and Aeneas and Romulus or even Hercules,
and Aesculapius and Liber, born of Semele, and the twin sons of Tyndareus,
or any other mortals who have been deified, but even the principal gods
themselves,(1) to whom Cicero, in his Tusculan questions,(2) alludes
without mentioning their names, Jupiter, Juno, Saturn, Vulcan, Vesta, and
many others whom Varro attempts to identify with the parts or the elements
of the world, are shown to have been men. There is, as we have said, a
similarity between this case and that of Numa; for the priest being afraid
because he had revealed a mystery, earnestly begged of Alexander to command
his mother to burn the letter which conveyed these communications to her.
Let these two theologies, then, the fabulous and the civil, give place to
the Platonic philosophers, who have recognized the true God as the author
of all things, the source of the light of truth, and the bountiful bestower
of all blessedness. And not these only, but to these great acknowledgers of
so great a God, those philosophers must yield who, having their mind
enslaved to their body, supposed the principles of all things to be
material; as Thales, who held that the first principle of all things was
water; Anaximenes, that it was air; the Stoics, that it was fire; Epicurus,
who affirmed that it consisted of atoms, that is to say, of minute
corpuscules; and many others whom it is needless to enumerate, but who
believed that bodies, simple or compound, animate or inanimate, but
nevertheless bodies, were the cause and principle of all things. For some
of them--as, for instance, the Epicureans--believed that living things
could originate from things without life; others held that all things
living or without life spring from a living principle, but that,
nevertheless, all things, being material, spring from a material principle.
For the Stoics thought that fire, that is, one of the four material
elements of which this visible world is composed, was both living and
intelligent, the maker of the world and of all things contained in it,--
that it was in fact God. These and others like them have only been able to
suppose that which their hearts enslaved to sense have vainly suggested to
them. And yet they have within themselves Something which they could not
see: they represented to themselves inwardly things which they had seen
without, even when they were not seeing them, but only thinking of them.
But this representation in thought is no longer a body, but only the
similitude of a body; and that faculty of the mind by which this similitude
of a body is seen is neither a body nor the similitude of a body; and the
faculty which judges whether the representation is beautiful or ugly is
without doubt superior to the object judged of. This principle is the
understanding of man, the rational soul; and it is certainly not a body,
since that similitude of a body which it beholds and judges of is itself
not a body. The soul is neither earth, nor water, nor air, nor fire, of
which four bodies, called the four elements, we see that this world is
composed. And if the soul is not a body, how should God, its Creator, be a
body? Let all those philosophers, then, give place, as we have said, to the
Platonists, and those also who have been ashamed to say that God is a body,
but yet have thought that our souls are of the same nature as God. They
have not been staggered by the great changeableness of the soul,--an
attribute which it would be impious to ascribe to the divine nature,--but
they say it is the body which changes the soul, for in itself it is
unchangeable. As well might they say, "Flesh is wounded by some body, for
in itself it is invulnerable." In a word, that which is unchangeable can be
changed by nothing, so that that which can be changed by the body cannot
properly be said to be immutable.
CHAP. 6.--CONCERNING THE MEANING OF THE PLATONISTS IN THAT PART OF
PHILOSOPHY CALLED PHYSICAL.
These philosophers, then, whom we see not undeservedly exalted above
the rest in fame and glory, have seen that no material body is God, and
therefore they have transcended all bodies in seeking for God. They have
seen that whatever is changeable is not the most high God, and therefore
they have transcended every soul and all changeable spirits in seeking the
supreme. They have seen also that, in every changeable thing, the form
which makes it that which it is, whatever be its mode or nature, can only
be through Him who truly is, because He is unchangeable. And therefore,
whether we consider the whole body of the world, its figure, qualities, and
orderly movement, and also all the bodies which are in it; or whether we
consider all life, either that which nourishes and maintains, as the life
of trees, or that which, besides this, has also sensation, as the life of
beasts; or that which adds to all these intelligence, as the life of man;
or that which does not need the support of nutriment, but only maintains,
feels, understands, as the life of angels,--all can only be through Him who
absolutely is. For to Him it is not one thing to be, and another to live,
as though He could be, not living; nor is it to Him one thing to live, and
another thing to understand, as though He could live, not understanding;
nor is it to Him one thing to understand, another thing to be blessed, as
though He could understand and not be blessed. But to Him to live, to
understand, to be blessed, are to be. They have understood, from this
unchangeableness and this simplicity, that all things must have been made
by Him, and that He could Himself have been made by none. For they have
considered that whatever is is either body or life, and that life is
something better than body, and that the nature of body is sensible, and
that of life intelligible. Therefore they have preferred the intelligible
nature to the sensible. We mean by sensible things such things as can be
perceived by the sight and touch of the body; by intelligible things, such
as can be understood by the sight of the mind For there is no corporeal
beauty, whether in the condition of a body, as figure, or in its movement,
as in music, of which it is not the mind that judges. But this could never
have been, had there not existed in the mind itself a superior form of
these things, without bulk, without noise of voice, without space and time.
But even in respect of these things, had the mind not been mutable, it
would not have been possible for one to judge better than another with
regard to sensible forms. He who is clever, judges better than he who is
slow, he who is skilled than he who is unskillful, he who is practised than
he who is unpractised; and the same person judges better after he has
gained experience than he did before. But that which is capable of more and
less is mutable; whence able men, who have thought deeply on these things,
have gathered that the first form is not to be found in those things whose
form is changeable. Since, therefore, they saw that body and mind might be
more or less beautiful in form, and that, if they wanted form, they could
have no existence, they saw that there is some existence in which is the
first form, unchangeable, and therefore not admitting of degrees of
comparison, and in that they most rightly believed was the first principle
of things which was not made, and by which all things were made. Therefore
that which is known of God He manifested to them when His invisible things
were seen by them, being understood by those things which have been made;
also His eternal power and Godhead by whom all visible and temporal things
have been created.(1) We have said enough upon that part of theology which
they call physical, that is, natural.
CHAP. 7.--HOW MUCH THE PLATONISTS ARE TO BE HELD AS EXCELLING OTHER
PHILOSOPHERS IN LOGIC, I. E. RATIONAL PHILOSOPHY.
Then, again, as far as regards the doctrine which treats of that which
they call logic, that is, rational philosophy, far be it from us to compare
them with those who attributed to the bodily senses the faculty of
discriminating truth, and thought, that all we learn is to be measured by
their untrustworthy and fallacious rules. Such were the Epicureans, and all
of the same school. Such also were the Stoics, who ascribed to the bodily
senses that expertness in disputation which they so ardently love, called
by them dialectic, asserting that from the senses the mind conceives the
notions (e`nnoiai) of those things which they explicate by definition. And
hence is developed the whole plan and connection of their learning and
teaching. I often wonder, with respect to this, how they can say that none
are beautiful but the wise; for by what bodily sense have they perceived
that beauty, by what eyes of the flesh have they seen wisdom's comeliness
of form? Those, however, whom we justly rank before all others, have
distinguished those things which are conceived by the mind from those which
are perceived by the senses, neither taking away from the senses anything
to which they are competent, nor attributing to them anything beyond their
competency. And the light of our understandings, by which all things are
learned by us, they have affirmed to be that selfsame God by whom all
things were made.
CHAP. 8.--THAT THE PLATONISTS HOLD THE FIRST RANK IN MORAL PHILOSOPHY ALSO.
The remaining part of philosophy is morals, or what is called by the
Greeks hthikh', in which is discussed the question concerning the chief
good,--that which will leave us nothing further to seek in order to be
blessed, if only we make all our actions refer to it, and seek it not for
the sake of something else, but for its own sake. Therefore it is called
the end, because we wish other things on account of it, but itself only for
its own sake. This beatific good, therefore, according to some, comes to a
man from the body, according to others, from the mind, and, according to
others, from both together. For they saw that man himself consists of soul
and body; and therefore they believed that from either of these two, or
from both together, their well-being must proceed, consisting in a certain
final good, which could render them blessed, and to which they might refer
all their actions, not requiring anything ulterior to which to refer that
good itself. This is why those who have added a third kind of good things,
which they call extrinsic,--as honor, glory, wealth, and the like,--have
not regarded them as part of the final good, that is, to be sought after
for their own sake, but as things which are to be sought for the sake of
something else, affirming that this kind of good is good to the good, and
evil to the evil. Wherefore, whether they have sought the good of man from
the mind or from the body, or from both together, it is still only from man
they have supposed that it must be sought. But they who have sought it from
the body have sought it from the inferior part of man; they who have sought
it from the mind, from the superior part; and they who have sought it from
both, from the whole man. Whether therefore, they have sought it from any
part, or from the whole man, still they have only sought it from man; nor
have these differences, being three, given rise only to three dissentient
sects of philosophers, but to many. For diverse philosophers have held
diverse opinions, both concerning the good of the body, and the good of the
mind, and the good of both together. Let, therefore, all these give place
to those philosophers who have not affirmed that a man is blessed by the
enjoyment of the body, or by the enjoyment of the mind, but by the
enjoyment of God,--enjoying Him, however, not as the mind does the body or
itself, or as one friend enjoys another, but as the eye enjoys light, if,
indeed, we may draw any comparison between these things. But what the
nature of this comparison is, will, if God help me, be shown in another
place, to the best of my ability. At present, it is sufficient to mention
that Plato determined the final good to be to live according to virtue, and
affirmed that he only can attain to virtue who knows and imitates God,--
which knowledge and imitation are the only cause of blessedness. Therefore
he did not doubt that to philosophize is to love God, whose nature is
incorporeal. Whence it certainly follows that the student of wisdom, that
is, the philosopher, will then become blessed when he shall have begun to
enjoy God. For though he is not necessarily blessed who enjoys that which
he loves (for many are miserable by loving that which ought not to be
loved, and still more miserable when they enjoy it), nevertheless no one is
blessed who does not enjoy that which he loves. For even they who love
things which ought not to be loved do not count themselves blessed by
loving merely, but by enjoying them. Who, then, but the most miserable will
deny that he is blessed, who enjoys that which he loves, and loves the true
and highest good? But the true and highest good, according to Plato, is
God, and therefore he would call him a philosopher who loves God; for
philosophy is directed to the obtaining of the blessed life, and he who
loves God is blessed in the enjoyment of God.
CHAP. 9.--CONCERNING THAT PHILOSOPHY WHICH HAS COME NEAREST TO THE
CHRISTIAN FAITH.
Whatever philosophers, therefore, thought concerning the supreme God,
that He is both the maker of all created things, the light by which things
are known, and the good in reference to which things are to be done; that
we have in Him the first principle of nature, the truth of doctrine, and
the happiness of life,--whether these philosophers may be more suitably
called Platonists, or whether they may give some other name to their sect;
whether, we say, that only the chief men of the Ionic school, such as Plato
himself, and they who have well understood him, have thought thus; or
whether we also include the Italic school, on account of Pythagoras and the
Pythagoreans, and all who may have held like opinions; and, lastly, whether
also we include all who have been held wise men and philosophers among all
nations who are discovered to have seen and taught this, be they Atlantics,
Libyans, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Chaldeans, Scythians, Gauls,
Spaniards, or of other nations,--we prefer these to all other philosophers,
and confess that they approach nearest to us.
CHAP. 10.--THAT THE EXCELLENCY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS ABOVE ALL THE
SCIENCE OF PHILOSOPHERS.
For although a Christian man instructed only in ecclesiastical
literature may perhaps be ignorant of the very name of Platonists, and may
not even know that there have existed two schools of philosophers speaking
the Greek tongue, to wit, the Ionic and Italic, he is nevertheless not so
deaf with respect to human affairs, as not to know that philosophers
profess the study, and even the possession, of wisdom. He is on his guard,
however, with respect to those who philosophize according to the elements
of this world, not according to God, by whom the world itself was made; for
he is warned by the precept of the apostle, and faithfully hears what has
been said, "Beware that no one deceive you through philosophy and vain
deceit, according to the elements of the world."(1) Then, that he may not
suppose that all philosophers are such as do this, he hears the same
apostle say concerning certain of them, "Because that which is known of God
is manifest among them, for God has manifested it to them. For His
invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things which are made, also His eternal power and
Godhead."(2) And, when speaking to the Athenians, after having spoken a
mighty thing concerning God, which few are able to understand, "In Him we
live, and move, and have our being,"(1) he goes on to say, "As certain also
of your own have said." He knows well, too, to be on his guard against even
these philosophers in their errors. For where it has been said by him,
"that God has manifested to them by those things which are made His
invisible things, that they might be seen by the understanding," there it
has also been said that they did not rightly worship God Himself, because
they paid divine honors, which are due to Him alone, to other things also
to which they ought not to have paid them,--"because, knowing God, they
glorified Him not as God: neither were thankful, but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves
to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible
God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man, and of birds, and
fourfooted beasts, and creeping things;"(2)--where the apostle would have
us understand him as meaning the Romans, and Greeks, and Egyptians, who
gloried in the name of wisdom; but concerning this we will dispute with
them afterwards. With respect, however, to that wherein they agree with us
we prefer them to all others namely, concerning the one God, the author of
this universe, who is not only above every body, being incorporeal, but
also above all souls, being incorruptible--our principle, our light, our
good. And though the Christian man, being ignorant of their writings, does
not use in disputation words which he has not learned,--not calling that
part of philosophy natural (which is the Latin term), or physical which is
the Greek one), which treats of the investigation of nature; or that part
rational, or logical, which deals with the question how truth may be
discovered; or that part moral, or ethical, which concerns morals, and
shows how good is to be sought, and evil to be shunned,--he is not,
therefore, ignorant that it is from the one true and supremely good God
that we have that nature in which we are made in the image of God, and that
doctrine by which we know Him and ourselves, and that grace through which,
by cleaving to Him, we are blessed. This, therefore, is the cause why we
prefer these to all the others, because, whilst other philosophers have
worn out their minds and powers in seeking the causes of things, and
endeavoring to discover the right mode of learning and of living, these, by
knowing God, have found where resides the cause by which the universe has
been constituted, and the light by which truth is to be discovered, and the
fountain at which felicity is to be drunk. All philosophers, then, who have
had these thoughts concerning God, whether Platonists or others, agree with
us. But we have thought it better to plead our cause with the Platonists,
because their writings are better known. For the Greeks, whose tongue holds
the highest place among the languages of the Gentiles, are loud in their
praises of these writings; and the Latins, taken with their excellence, or
their renown, have studied them more heartily than other writings, and, by
translating them into our tongue, have given them greater celebrity and
notoriety.
CHAP. 11.--HOW PLATO HAS BEEN ABLE TO APPROACH SO NEARLY TO CHRISTIAN
KNOWLEDGE.
Certain partakers with us in the grace of Christ, wonder when they hear
and read that Plato had conceptions concerning God, in which they recognize
considerable agreement with the truth of our religion. Some have concluded
from this, that when he went to Egypt he had heard the prophet Jeremiah,
or, whilst travelling in the same country, had read the prophetic
scriptures, which opinion I myself have expressed in certain of my
writings.(3) But a careful calculation of dates, contained in chronological
history, shows that Plato was born about a hundred years after the time in
which Jeremiah prophesied, and, as he lived eighty-one years, there are
found to have been about seventy years from his death to that time when
Ptolemy, king of Egypt, requested the prophetic scriptures of the Hebrew
people to be sent to him from Judea, and committed them to seventy Hebrews,
who also knew the Greek tongue, to be translated and kept. Therefore, on
that voyage of his, Plato could neither have seen Jeremiah, who was dead so
long before, nor have read those same scriptures which had not yet been
translated into the Greek language, of which he was a master, unless,
indeed, we say that, as he was most earnest in the pursuit of knowledge, he
also studied those writings through an interpreter, as he did those of the
Egyptians,--not, indeed, writing a translation of them (the facilities for
doing which were only gained even by Ptolemy in return for munificent acts
of kindness,(4) though fear of his kingly authority might have seemed a
sufficient motive), but learning as much as he possibly could concerning
their contents by means of conversation. What warrants this supposition are
the opening verses of Genesis: "In the beginning God made the heaven and
earth. And the earth was invisible, and without order; and darkness was
over the abyss: and the Spirit of God moved over the waters."(1) For in the
Timaeus, when writing on the formation of the world, he says that God first
united earth and fire; from which it is evident that he assigns to fire a
place in heaven. This opinion bears a certain resemblance to the statement,
"In the beginning God made heaven and earth." Plato next speaks of those
two intermediary elements, water and air, by which the other two extremes,
namely, earth and fire, were mutually united; from which circumstance he is
thought to have so understood the words, "The Spirit of God moved over the
waters." For, not paying sufficient attention to the designations given by
those scriptures to the Spirit of God, he may have thought that the four
elements are spoken of in that place, because the air also is called
spirit.(2) Then, as to Plato's saying that the philosopher is a lover of
God, nothing shines forth more conspicuously in those sacred writings. But
the most striking thing in this connection, and that which most of all
inclines me almost to assent to the opinion that Plato was not ignorant of
those writings, is the answer which was given to the question elicited from
the holy Moses when the words of God were conveyed to him by the angel;
for, when he asked what was the name of that God who was commanding him to
go and deliver the Hebrew people out of Egypt, this answer was given: "I am
who am; and thou shalt say to the children of Israel, He who is sent me
unto you;"(3) as though compared with Him that truly is, because He is
unchangeable, those things which have been created mutable are not,--a
truth which Plato zealously held, and most diligently commended. And I know
not whether this sentiment is anywhere to be found in the books of those
who were before Plato, unless in that book where it is said, "I am who am;
and thou shalt say to the children of Israel, who is sent me unto you."
CHAP. 12.--THAT EVEN THE PLATONISTS, THOUGH THEY SAY THESE THINGS
CONCERNING THE ONE TRUE GOD, NEVERTHELESS THOUGHT THAT SACRED RITES WERE TO
BE PERFORMED IN HONOR OF MANY GODS.
But we need not determine from what source he learned these things,--
whether it was from the books of the ancients who preceded him, or, as is
more likely, from the words of the apostle: "Because that which is known of
God, has been manifested among them, for God hath manifested it to them.
For His invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being understood by those things which have been made, also His eternal
power and Godhead."(4) From whatever source he may have derived this
knowledge, then, I think I have made it sufficiently plain that I have not
chosen the Platonic philosophers undeservedly as the parties with whom to
discuss; because the question we have just taken up concerns the natural
theology,--the question, namely, whether sacred rites are to be performed
to one God, or to many, for the sake of the happiness which is to be after
death. I have specially chosen them because their juster thoughts
concerning the one God who made heaven and earth, have made them
illustrious among philosophers. This has given them such superiority to all
others in the judgment of posterity, that, though Aristotle, the disciple
of Plato, a man of eminent abilities, inferior in eloquence to Plato, yet
far superior to many in that respect, had rounded the Peripatetic sect,--so
called because they were in the habit of walking about during their
disputations,--and though he had, through the greatness of his fame,
gathered very many disciples into his school, even during the life of his
master; and though Plato at his death was succeeded in his school, which
was called the Academy, by Speusippus, his sister's son, and Xenocrates,
his beloved disciple, who, together with their successors, were called from
this name of the school, Academics; nevertheless the most illustrious
recent philosophers, who have chosen to follow Plato, have been unwilling
to be called Peripatetics, or Academics, but have preferred the name of
Platonists. Among these were the renowned Plotinus, Iamblichus, and
Porphyry, who were Greeks, and the African Apuleius, who was learned both
in the Greek and Latin tongues. All these, however, and the rest who were
of the same school, and also Plato himself, thought that sacred rites ought
to be performed in honor of many gods.
CHAP. 13.--CONCERNING THE OPINION OF PLATO, ACCORDING TO WHICH HE DEFINED
THE GODS AS BEINGS ENTIRELY GOOD AND THE FRIENDS OF VIRTUE.
Therefore, although in many other important respects they differ from
us, nevertheless with respect to this particular point of difference, which
I have just stated, as it is one of great moment, and the question on hand
concerns it, I will first ask them to what gods they think that sacred
rites are to be performed,--to the good or to the bad, or to both the good
and the bad? But we have the opinion of Plato affirming that all the gods
are good, and that there is not one of the gods bad. It follows, therefore,
that these are to be performed to the good, for then they are performed to
gods; for if they are not good, neither are they gods. Now, if this be the
case (for what else ought we to believe concerning the gods?), certainly it
explodes the opinion that the bad gods are to be propitiated by sacred
rites in order that they may not harm us, but the good gods are to be
invoked in order that they may assist us. For there are no bad gods, and it
is to the good that, as they say, the due honor of such rites is to be
paid. Of what character, then, are those gods who love scenic displays,
even demanding that a place be given them among divine things, and that
they be exhibited in their honor? The power of these gods proves that they
exist, but their liking such things proves that they are bad. For it is
well-known what Plato's opinion was concerning scenic plays. He thinks that
the poets themselves, because they have composed songs so unworthy of the
majesty and goodness of the gods, ought to be banished from the state. Of
what character, therefore, are those gods who contend with Plato himself
about those scenic plays? He does not suffer the gods to be defamed by
false crimes; the gods command those same crimes to be celebrated in their
own honor.
In fine, when they ordered these plays to be inaugurated, they not only
demanded base things, but also did cruel things, taking from Titus Latinius
his son, and sending a disease upon him because he had refused to obey
them, which they removed when he had fulfilled their commands. Plato,
however, bad though they were, did not think they were to be feared; but,
holding to his opinion with the utmost firmness and constancy, does not
hesitate to remove from a well-ordered state all the sacrilegious follies
of the poets, with which these gods are delighted because they themselves
are impure. But Labeo places this same Plato (as I have mentioned already
in the second book(1)) among the demi-gods. Now Labeo thinks that the bad
deities are to be propitiated with bloody victims, and by fasts accompanied
with the same, but the good deities with plays, and all other things which
are associated with joyfulness. How comes it, then, that the demi-god Plato
so persistently dares to take away those pleasures, because he deems them
base, not from the demi-gods but from the gods, and these the good gods?
And, moreover, those very gods themselves do certainly refute the opinion
of Labeo, for they showed themselves in the case of Latinius to be not only
wanton and sportive, but also cruel and terrible. Let the Platonists,
therefore, explain these things to us, since, following the opinion of
their master, they think that all the gods are good and honorable, and
friendly to the virtues of the wise, holding it unlawful to think otherwise
concerning any of the gods. We will explain it, say they. Let us then
attentively listen to them.
CHAP. 14.--OF THE OPINION OF THOSE WHO HAVE SAID THAT RATIONAL SOULS ARE OF
THREE KINDS, TO WIT, THOSE OF THE CELESTIAL GODS, THOSE OF THE AERIAL
DEMONS, AND THOSE OF TERRESTRIAL MEN.
There is, say they, a threefold division of all animals endowed with a
rational soul, namely, into gods, men, and demons. The gods occupy the
loftiest region, men the lowest, the demons the middle region. For the
abode of the gods is heaven, that of men the earth, that of the demons the
air. As the dignity of their regions is diverse, so also is that of their
natures; therefore the gods are better than men and demons. Men have been
placed below the gods and demons, both in respect of the order of the
regions they inhabit, and the difference of their merits. The demons,
therefore, who hold the middle place, as they are inferior to the gods,
than whom they inhabit a lower region, so they are superior to men, than
whom they inhabit a loftier one. For they have immortality of body in
common with the gods, but passions of the mind in common with men. On which
account, say they, it is not wonderful that they are delighted with the
obscenities of the theatre, and the fictions of the poets, since they are
also subject to human passions, from which the gods are far removed, and to
which they are altogether strangers. Whence we conclude that it was not the
gods, who are all good and highly exalted, that Plato deprived of the
pleasure of theatric plays, by reprobating and prohibiting the fictions of
the poets, but the demons.
Of these things many have written: among others Apuleius, the Platonist
of Madaura, who composed a whole work on the subject, entitled, Concerning
the God of Socrates. He there discusses and explains of what kind that
deity was who attended on Socrates, a sort of familiar, by whom it is said
he was admonished to desist from any action which would not turn out to his
advantage. He asserts most distinctly, and proves at great length, that it
was not a god but a demon; and he discusses with great diligence the
opinion of Plato concerning the lofty estate of the gods, the lowly estate
of men, and the middle estate of demons. These things being so, how did
Plato dare to take away, if not from the gods, whom he removed from all
human contagion, certainly from the demons, all the pleasures of the
theatre, by expelling the poets from the state? Evidently in this way he
wished to admonish the human soul, although still confined in these
moribund members, to despise the shameful commands of the demons, and to
detest their impurity, and to choose rather the splendor of virtue. But if
Plato showed himself virtuous in answering and prohibiting these things,
then certainly it was shameful of the demons to command them. Therefore
either Apuleius is wrong, and Socrates' familiar did not belong to this
class of deities, or Plato held contradictory opinions, now honoring the
demons, now removing from the well-regulated state the things in which they
delighted, or Socrates is not to be congratulated on the friendship of the
demon, of which Apuleius was so ashamed that he entitled his book On the
God of Socrates, whilst according to the tenor of his discussion, wherein
he so diligently and at such length distinguishes gods from demons, he
ought not to have entitled it, Concerning the God, but Concerning the Demon
of Socrates. But he preferred to put this into the discussion itself rather
than into the title of his book. For, through the sound doctrine which has
illuminated human society, all, or almost all men have such a horror at the
name of demons, that every one who before reading the dissertation of
Apuleius, which sets forth the dignity of demons, should have read the
title of the book, On the Demon of Socrates, would certainly have thought
that the author was not a sane man. But what did even Apuleius find to
praise in the demons, except subtlety and strength of body and a higher
place of habitation? For when he spoke generally concerning their manners,
he said nothing that was good, but very much that was bad. Finally, no one,
when he has read that book, wonders that they desired to have even the
obscenity of the stage among divine things, or that, wishing to be thought
gods, they should be delighted with the crimes of the gods, or that all
those sacred solemnities, whose obscenity occasions laughter, and whose
shameful cruelty causes horror, should be in agreement with their passions.
CHAP. 15.--THAT THE DEMONS ARE NOT BETTER THAN MEN BECAUSE OF THEIR AERIAL
BODIES, OR ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR SUPERIOR PLACE OF ABODE.
Wherefore let not the mind truly religious, and submitted to the true
God, suppose that demons are better than men, because they have better
bodies. Otherwise it must put many beasts before itself which are superior
to us both in acuteness of the senses, in ease and quickness of movement,
in strength and in long-continued vigor of body. What man can equal the
eagle or the vulture in strength of vision? Who can equal the dog in
acuteness of smell? Who can equal the hare, the stag, and all the birds in
swiftness? Who can equal in strength the lion or the elephant? Who can
equal in length of life the serpents, which are affirmed to put off old age
along with their skin, and to return to youth again? But as we are better
than all these by the possession of reason and understanding, so we ought
also to be better than the demons by living good and virtuous lives. For
divine providence gave to them bodies of a better quality than ours, that
that in which we excel them might in this way be commended to us as
deserving to be far more cared for than the body, and that we should learn
to despise the bodily excellence of the demons compared with goodness of
life, in respect of which we are better than they, knowing that we too
shall have immortality of body,--not an immortality tortured by eternal
punishment, but that which is consequent on purity of soul.
But now, as regards loftiness of place, it is altogether ridiculous to
be so influenced by the fact that the demons inhabit the air, and we the
earth, as to think that on that account they are to be put before us; for
in this way we put all the birds before ourselves. But the birds, when they
are weary with flying, or require to repair their bodies with food, come
back to the earth to rest or to feed, which the demons, they say, do not.
Are they, therefore, inclined to say that the birds are superior to us, and
the demons superior to the birds? But if it be madness to think so, there
is no reason why we should think that, on account of their inhabiting a
loftier element, the demons have a claim to our religious submission. But
as it is really the case that the birds of the air are not only not put
before us who dwell on the earth; but are even subjected to us on account
of the dignity of the rational soul which is in us, so also it is the case
that the demons, though they are aerial, are not better than we who are
terrestrial because the air is higher than the earth, but, on the contrary,
men are to be put before demons because their despair is not to be compared
to the hope of pious men. Even that law of Plato's, according to which he
mutually orders and arranges the four elements, inserting between the two
extreme elements-namely, fire, which is in the highest degree mobile, and
the immoveable earth--the two middle ones, air and water, that by how much
the air is higher up than the water, and the fire than the air, by so much
also are the waters higher than the earth,--this law, I say, sufficiently
admonishes us not to estimate the merits of animated creatures according to
the grades of the elements. And Apuleius himself says that man is a
terrestrial animal in common with the rest, who is nevertheless to be put
far before aquatic animals, though Plato puts the waters themselves before
the land. By this he would have us understand that the same order is not to
be observed when the question concerns the merits of animals, though it
seems to be the true one in the gradation of bodies; for it appears to be
possible that a soul of a higher order may inhabit a body of a lower, and a
soul of a lower order a body of a higher.
CHAP. 16.--WHAT APULEIUS THE PLATONIST THOUGHT CONCERNING THE MANNERS AND
ACTIONS OF DEMONS.
The same Apuleius, when speaking concerning the manners of demons, said
that they are agitated with the same perturbations of mind as men; that
they are provoked by injuries, propitiated by services and by gifts,
rejoice in honors, are delighted with a variety of sacred rites, and are
annoyed if any of them be neglected. Among other things, he also says that
on them depend the divinations of augurs, soothsayers, and prophets, and
the revelations of dreams, and that from them also are the miracles of the
magicians. But, when giving a brief definition of them, he says, "Demons
are of an animal nature, passive in soul, rational in mind, aerial in body,
eternal in time." "Of which five things, the three first are common to them
and us, the fourth peculiar to themselves, and the fifth common to
therewith the gods."(1) But I see that they have in common with the gods
two of the first things, which they have in common with us. For he says
that the gods also are animals; and when he is assigning to every order of
beings its own element, he places us among the other terrestrial animals
which live and feel upon the earth. Wherefore, if the demons are animals as
to genus, this is common to them, not only with men, but also with the gods
and with beasts; if they are rational as to their mind, this is common to
them with the gods and with men; if they are eternal in time, this is
common to them with the gods only; if they are passive as to their soul,
this is common to them with men only; if they are aerial in body, in this
they are alone. Therefore it is no great thing for them to be of an animal
nature, for so also are the beasts; in being rational as to mind, they are
not above ourselves, for so are we also; and as to their being eternal as
to time, what is the advantage of that if they are not blessed? for better
is temporal happiness than eternal misery. Again, as to their being passive
in soul, how are they in this respect above us, since we also are so, but
would not have been so had we not been miserable? Also, as to their being
aerial in body, how much value is to be set on that, since a soul of any
kind whatsoever is to be set above every body? and therefore religious
worship, which ought to be rendered from the soul, is by no means due to
that thing which is inferior to the soul. Moreover, if he had, among those
things which he says belong to demons, enumerated virtue, wisdom,
happiness, and affirmed that they have those things in common with the
gods, and, like them, eternally, he would assuredly have attributed to them
something greatly to be desired, and much to be prized. And even in that
case it would not have been our duty to worship them like God on account of
these things, but rather to worship Him from whom we know they had received
them. But how much less are they really worthy of divine honor,--those
aerial animals who are only rational that they may be capable of misery,
passive that they may be actually miserable, and eternal that it may be
impossible for them to end their misery !
CHAP. 17.--WHETHER IT IS PROPER THAT MEN SHOULD WORSHIP THOSE SPIRITS FROM
WHOSE VICES IT IS NECESSARY THAT THEY BE FREED.
Wherefore, to omit other things, and confine our attention to that
which he says is common to the demons with us, let us ask this question: If
all the four elements are full of their own animals, the fire and the air
of immortal, and the water and the earth of mortal ones, why are the souls
of demons agitated by the whirlwinds and tempests of passions?--for the
Greek word pa'thos means perturbation, whence he chose to call the demons
"passive in soul," because the word passion, which is derived from pa'thos,
signified a comotion of the mind contrary to reason. Why, then, are these
things in the minds of demons which are not in beasts? For if anything of
this kind appears in beasts, it is not perturbation, because it is not
contrary to reason, of which they are devoid. Now it is foolishness or
misery which is the cause of these perturbations in the case of men, for we
are not yet blessed in the possession of that perfection of wisdom which is
promised to us at last, when we shall be set free from our present
mortality. But the gods, they say, are free from these perturbations,
because they are not only eternal, but also blessed; for they also have the
same kind of rational souls, but most pure from all spot and plague. Where
fore; if the gods are tree from perturbation because they are blessed, not
miserable animals, and the beasts are free from them because they are
animals which are capable neither of blessedness nor misery, it remains
that the demons, like men, are subject to perturbations because they are
not blessed but miserable animals. What folly, therefore, or rather what
madness, to submit ourselves through any sentiment of religion to demons,
when it belongs to the true religion to deliver us from that depravity
which makes us like to them! For Apuleius himself, although he is very
sparing toward them, and thinks they are worthy of divine honors, is
nevertheless compelled to confess that they are subject to anger; and the
true religion commands us not to be moved with anger, but rather to resist
it. The demons are won over by gifts; and the true religion commands us to
favor no one on account of gifts received. The demons are flattered by
honors; but the true religion commands us by no means to be moved by such
things. The demons are haters of some men and lovers of others, not in
consequence of a prudent and calm judgment, but because of what he calls
their "passive soul;" whereas the true religion commands us to love even
our enemies. Lastly, the true religion commands us to put away all
disquietude of heart and agitation of mind, and also all commotions and
tempests of the soul, which Apuleius asserts to be continually swelling and
surging in the souls of demons. Why, therefore, except through foolishness
and miserable error shouldst thou humble thyself to worship a being to whom
thou desirest to be unlike in thy life? And why shouldst thou pay religious
homage to him whom thou art unwilling to imitate, when it is the highest
duty of religion to imitate Him whom thou worshippest?
CHAP. 18.--WHAT KIND OF RELIGION THAT IS WHICH TEACHES THAT MEN OUGHT TO
EMPLOY THE ADVOCACY OF DEMONS IN ORDER TO BE RECOMMENDED TO THE FAVOR OF
THE GOOD GODS.
In vain, therefore, have Apuleius, and they who think with him,
conferred on the demons the honor of placing them in the air, between the
ethereal heavens and the earth, that they may carry to the gods the prayers
of men, to men the answers of the gods: for Plato held, they say, that no
god has intercourse with man. They who believe these things have thought it
unbecoming that men should have intercourse with the gods, and the gods
with men, but a befitting thing that the demons should have intercourse
with both gods and men, presenting to the gods the petitions of men, and
conveying to men what the gods have granted; so that a chaste man, and one
who is a stranger to the crimes of the magic arts, must use as patrons,
through whom the gods may be induced to hear him, demons who love these
crimes, although the very fact of his not loving them ought to have
recommended him to them as one who deserved to be listened to with greater
readiness and willingness on their part. They love the abominations of the
stage, which chastity does not love. They love, in the sorceries of the
magicians, "a thousand arts of inflicting harm,"(1) which innocence does
not love. Yet both chastity and innocence, if they wish to obtain anything
from the gods, will not be able to do so by their own merits, except their
enemies act as mediators on their behalf. Apuleius need not attempt to
justify the fictions of the poets, and the mockeries of the stage. If human
modesty can act so faithlessly towards itself as not only to love shameful
things, but even to think that they are pleasing to the divinity, we can
cite on the other side their own highest authority and teacher, Plato.
CHAP. 19.--OF THE IMPIETY OF THE MAGIC ART, WHICH IS DEPENDENT ON THE
ASSISTANCE OF MALIGN SPIRITS.
Moreover, against those magic arts, concerning which some men,
exceedingly wretched and exceedingly impious, delight to boast, may not
public opinion itself be brought forward as a witness? For why are those
arts so severely punished by the laws, if they are the works of deities who
ought to be worshipped? Shall it be said that the Christians have ordained
those laws by which magic arts are punished? With what other meaning,
except that these sorceries are without doubt pernicious to the human race,
did the most illustrious poet say,
"By heaven, I swear, and your dear life,
Unwillingly these arms I wield,
And take, to meet the coming strife,
Enchantment's sword and shield."(1)
And that also which he says in another place concerning magic arts,
"I've seen him to another place transport the standing corn,"(2)
has reference to the fact that the fruits of one field are said to be
transferred to another by these arts which this pestiferous and accursed
doctrine teaches. Does not Cicero inform us that, among the laws of the
Twelve Tables, that is, the most ancient laws of the Romans, there was a
law written which appointed a punishment to be inflicted on him who should
do this?(3) Lastly, was it before Christian judges that Apuleius himself
was accused of magic arts?(4) Had he known these arts to be divine and
pious, and congruous with the works of divine power, he ought not only to
have confessed, but also to have professed them, rather blaming the laws by
which these things were prohibited and pronounced worthy of condemnation,
while they ought to have been held worthy of admiration and respect. For by
so doing, either he would have persuaded the judges to adopt his own
opinion, or, if they had shown their partiality for unjust laws, and
condemned him to death notwithstanding his praising and commending such
things, the demons would have bestowed on his soul such rewards as he
deserved, who, in order to proclaim and set forth their divine works, had
not feared the loss of his human life. As our martyrs, when that religion
was charged on them as a crime, by which they knew they were made safe and
most glorious throughout eternity, did not choose, by denying it, to escape
temporal punishments, but rather by confessing, professing, and proclaiming
it, by enduring all things for it with fidelity and fortitude, and by dying
for it with pious calmness, put to shame the law by which that religion was
prohibited, and caused its revocation. But there is extant a most copious
and eloquent oration of this Platonic philosopher, in which he defends
himself against the charge of practising these arts, affirming that he is
wholly a stranger to them, and only wishing to show his innocence by
denying such things as cannot be innocently committed. But all the miracles
of the magicians, who he thinks are justly deserving of condemnation, are
performed according to the teaching and by the power of demons. Why, then,
does he think that they ought to be honored? For he asserts that they are
necessary, in order to present our prayers to the gods, and yet their works
are such as we must shun if we wish our prayers to reach the true God.
Again, I ask, what kind of prayers of men does he suppose are presented to
the good gods by the demons? If magical prayers, they will have none such;
if lawful prayers, they will not receive them through such beings. But if a
sinner who is penitent pour out prayers, especially if he has committed any
crime of sorcery, does he receive pardon through the intercession of those
demons by whose instigation and help he has fallen into the sin be mourns?
or do the demons themselves, in order that they may merit pardon for the
penitent, first become penitents because they have deceived them? This no
one ever said concerning the demons; for had this been the case, they would
never have dared to seek for themselves divine honors. For how should they
do so who desired by penitence to obtain the grace of pardon; seeing that
such detestable pride could not exist along with a humility worthy of
pardon?
CHAP. 20.--WHETHER WE ARE TO BELIEVE THAT THE GOOD GODS ARE MORE WILLING TO
HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH DEMONS THAN WITH MEN.
But does any urgent and most pressing cause compel the demons to
mediate between the gods and men, that they may offer the prayers of men,
and bring back the answers from the gods? and if so, what, pray, is that
cause, what is that so great necessity? Because, say they, no god has
intercourse with man. Most admirable holiness of God, which has no
intercourse with a supplicating man, and yet has intercourse with an
arrogant demon! which has no intercourse with a penitent man, and yet has
intercourse with a deceiving demon! which has no intercourse with a man
fleeing for refuge to the divine nature, and yet has intercourse with a
demon reigning divinity! which has no intercourse with a man seeking
pardon, and yet has intercourse with a demon persuading to wickedness!
which has no intercourse with a man expelling the poets by means of
philosophical writings from a well-regulated state, and yet has intercourse
with a demon requesting from the princes and priests of a state the
theatrical performance of the mockeries of the poets! which has no
intercourse with the man who prohibits the ascribing of crime to the gods,
and yet has intercourse with a demon who takes delight in the fictitious
representation of their crimes! which has no intercourse with a man
punishing the crimes of the magicians by just laws, and yet has intercourse
with a demon teaching and practising magical arts! which has no intercourse
with a man shunning the imitation of a demon, and yet has intercourse with
a demon lying in wait for the deception of a man!
CHAP. 21.--WHETHER THE GODS USE THE DEMONS AS MESSENGERS AND INTERPRETERS,
AND WHETHER THEY ARE DECEIVED BY THEM WILLINGLY, OR WITHOUT THEIR OWN
KNOWLEDGE.
But herein, no doubt, lies the great necessity for this absurdity, so
unworthy of the gods, that the ethereal gods, who are concerned about human
affairs, would not know what terrestrial men were doing unless the aerial
demons should bring them intelligence, because the ether is suspended far
away from the earth and far above it, but the air is contiguous both to the
ether and to the earth O admirable wisdom! what else do these men think
concerning the gods who, they say, are all in the highest degree good, but
that they are concerned about human affairs, lest they should seem unworthy
of worship, whilst, on the other hand, from the distance between the
elements, they are ignorant of terrestrial things? It is on this account
that they have supposed the demons to be necessary as agents, through whom
the gods may inform themselves with respect to human affairs, and through
whom, when necessary, they may succor men; and it is on account of this
office that the demons themselves have been held as deserving of worship.
If this be the case, then a demon is better known by these good gods
through nearness of body, than a man is by goodness of mind. O mournful
necessity, or shall I not rather say detestable and vain error, that I may
not impute vanity to the divine nature! For if the gods can, with their
minds free from the hindrance of bodies, see our mind, they do not need the
demons as messengers from our mind to them; but if the ethereal gods, by
means of their bodies, perceive the corporeal indices of minds, as the
countenance, speech, motion, and thence understand what the demons tell
them, then it is also possible that they may be deceived by the falsehoods
of demons. Moreover, if the divinity of the gods cannot be deceived by the
demons, neither can it be ignorant of our actions. But I would they would
tell me whether the demons have informed the gods that the fictions of the
poets concerning the crimes of the gods displease Plato, concealing the
pleasure which they themselves take in them; or whether they have concealed
both, and have preferred that the gods should be ignorant with respect to
this whole matter, or have told both, as well the pious prudence of Plato
with respect to the gods as their own lust, which is injurious to the gods;
or whether they have concealed Plato's opinion, according to which he was
unwilling that the gods should be defamed with falsely alleged crimes
through the impious license of the poets, whilst they have not been ashamed
nor afraid to make known their own wickedness, which make them love
theatrical plays, in which the infamous deeds of the gods are celebrated.
Let them choose which they will of these four alternatives, and let them
consider how much evil any one of them would require them to think of the
gods. For if they choose the first, they must then confess that it was not
possible for the good gods to dwell with the good Plato, though he sought
to prohibit things injurious to them, whilst they dwelt with evil demons,
who exulted in their injuries; and this because they suppose that the good
gods can only know a good man, placed at so great a distance from them,
through the mediation of evil demons, whom they could know on account of
their nearness to themselves.(1) If they shall choose the second, and shall
say that both these things are concealed by the demons, so that the gods
are wholly ignorant both of Plato's most religious law and the sacrilegious
pleasure of the demons, what, in that case, can the gods know to any profit
with respect to human affairs through these mediating demons, when they do
not know those things which are decreed, through the piety of good men, for
the honor of the good gods against the lust of evil demons? But if they
shall choose the third, and reply that these intermediary demons have
communicated, not only the opinion of Plato, which prohibited wrongs to be
done to the gods, but also their own delight in these wrongs, I would ask
if such a communication is not rather an insult? Now the gods, hearing both
and knowing both, not only permit the approach of those malign demons, who
desire and do things contrary to the dignity of the gods and the religion
of Plato, but also, through these wicked demons, who are near to them, send
good things to the good Plato, who is far away from them; for their inhabit
such a place in the concatenated series of the elements, that they can come
into contact with those by whom they are accused, but not with him by whom
they are defended,--knowing the truth on both sides, but not being able to
change the weight of the air and the earth. There remains the fourth
supposition; but it is worse than the rest. For who will suffer it to be
said that the demons have made known the calumnious fictions of the poets
concerning the immortal gods, and also the disgraceful mockeries of the
theatres, and their own most ardent lust after, and most sweet pleasure in
these things, whilst they have concealed from them that Plato, with the
gravity of a philosopher, gave it as his opinion that all these things
ought to be removed from a well-regulated republic; so that the good gods
are now compelled, through such messengers, to know the evil doings of the
most wicked beings, that is to say, of the messengers themselves, and are
not allowed to know the good deeds of the philosophers, though the former
are for the injury, but these latter for the honor of the gods themselves?
CHAP. 22.--THAT WE MUST, NOTWITHSTANDING THE OPINION OF APULEIUS, REJECT
THE WORSHIP OF DEMONS.
None of these four alternatives, then, is to be chosen; for we dare not
suppose such unbecoming things concerning the gods as the adoption of any
one of them would lead us to think. It remains, therefore, that no credence
whatever is to be given to the opinion of Apuleius and the other
philosophers of the same school, namely, that the demons act as messengers
and interpreters between the gods and men to carry our petitions from us to
the gods, and to bring back to us the help of the gods. On the contrary, we
must believe them to be spirits most eager to inflict harm, utterly alien
from righteousness, swollen with pride, pale with envy, subtle in deceit;
who dwell indeed in this air as in a prison, in keeping with their own
character, because, cast down from the height of the higher heaven, they
have been condemned to dwell in this element as the just reward of
irretrievable transgression. But, though the air is situated above the
earth and the wafers, they are not on that account superior in merit to
men, who, though they do not surpass them as far as their earthly bodies
are concerned, do nevertheless far excel them through piety of mind,--they
having made choice of the true God as their helper. Over many, however, who
are manifestly unworthy of participation in the true religion, they
tyrannize as over captives whom they have subdued,--the greatest part of
whom they have persuaded of their divinity by wonderful and lying signs,
consisting either of deeds or of predictions. Some, nevertheless, who have
more attentively and diligently considered their vices, they have not been
able to persuade that they are gods, and so have reigned themselves to be
messengers between the gods and men. Some, indeed, have thought that not
even this latter honor ought to be acknowledged as belonging to them, not
believing that they were gods, because they saw that they were wicked,
whereas the gods, according to their view, are all good. Nevertheless they
dared not say that they were wholly unworthy of all divine honor, for fear
of offending the multitude, by whom, through inveterate superstition, the
demons were served by the performance of many rites, and the erection of
many temples.
CHAP. 23.--WHAT HERMES TRISMEGISTUS THOUGHT CONCERNING IDOLATRY, AND FROM
WHAT SOURCE HE KNEW THAT THE SUPERSTITIONS OF EGYPT WERE TO BE ABOLISHED.
The Egyptian Hermes, whom they call Trismegistus, had a different
opinion concerning those demons. Apuleius, indeed, denies that they are
gods; but when he says that they hold a middle place between the gods and
men, so that they seem to be necessary for men as mediators between them
and the gods, he does not distinguish between the worship due to them and
the religious homage due to the supernal gods. This Egyptian, however, says
that there are some gods made by the supreme God, and some made by men. Any
one who hears this, as I have stated it, no doubt supposes that it has
reference to images, because they are the works of the hands of men; but he
asserts that visible and tangible images are, as it were, only the bodies
of the gods, and that there dwell in them certain spirits, which have been
invited to come into them, and which have power to inflict harm, or to
fulfil the desires of those by whom divine honors and services are rendered
to them. To unite, therefore, by a certain art, those invisible spirits to
visible and material things, so as to make, as it were, animated bodies,
dedicated and given up to those spirits who inhabit them,--this, he says,
is to make gods, adding that men have received this great and wonderful
power. I will give the words of this Egyptian as they have been translated
into our tongue: "And, since we have undertaken to discourse concerning the
relationship and fellowship between men and the gods, know, O Aesculapius,
the power and strength of man. As the Lord and Father, or that which is
highest, even God, is the maker of the celestial gods, so man is the maker
of the gods who are in the temples, content to dwell near to men."(1) And a
little after he says, "Thus humanity, always mindful of its nature and
origin, perseveres in the imitation of divinity; and as the Lord and Father
made eternal gods, that they should be like Himself, so humanity fashioned
its own gods according to the likeness of its own countenance." When this
Aesculapius, to whom especially he was speaking, had answered him, and had
said, "Dost thou mean the statues, O Trismegistus? "--" Yes, the statues,"
replied he, "however unbelieving thou art, O Aesculapius,--the statues,
animated and full of sensation and spirit, and who do such great and
wonderful things,--the statues prescient of future things, and foretelling
them by lot, by prophet, by dreams, and many other things, who bring
diseases on men and cure them again, giving them joy or sorrow according to
their merits. Dost thou not know, O Aesculapius, that Egypt is an image of
heaven, or, more truly, a translation and descent of all things which are
ordered and transacted there, that it is, in truth, if we may say so, to be
the temple of the whole world? And yet, as it becomes the prudent man to
know all things beforehand, ye ought not to be ignorant of this, that there
is a time coming when it shall appear that the Egyptians have all in vain,
with pious mind, and with most scrupulous diligence, waited on the
divinity, and when all their holy worship shall come to nought, and be
found to be in vain."
Hermes then follows out at great length the statements of this passage,
in which he seems to predict the present time, in which the Christian
religion is overthrowing all lying figments with a vehemence and liberty
proportioned to its superior truth and holiness, in order that the grace of
the true Saviour may deliver men from those gods which man has made, and
subject them to that God by whom man was made. But when Hermes predicts
these things, he speaks as one who is a friend to these same mockeries of
demons, and does not clearly express the name of Christ. On the contrary,
he deplores, as if it had already taken place, the future abolition of
those things by the observance of which there was maintained in Egypt a
resemblance of heaven,--he bears witness to Christianity by a kind of
mournful prophecy. Now it was with reference to such that the apostle said,
that "knowing God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful,
but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was
darkened; professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed
the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of
corruptible man,"(2) and so on, for the whole passage is too long to quote.
For Hermes makes many such statements agreeable to the truth concerning the
one true God who fashioned this world. And I know not how he has become so
bewildered by that "darkening of the heart" as to stumble into the
expression of a desire that men should always continue in subjection to
those gods which he confesses to be made by men, and to bewail their future
removal; as if there could be anything more wretched than mankind
tyrannized over by the work of his own hands, since man, by worshipping the
works of his own hands, may more easily cease to be man, than the works of
his hands can, through his worship of them, become gods. For it can sooner
happen that man, who has received an honorable position, may, through lack
of understanding, become comparable to the beasts, than that the works of
man may become preferable to the work of God, made in His own image, that
is, to man himself. Wherefore deservedly is man left to fall away from Him
who made Him, when he prefers to himself that which he himself has made.
For these vain, deceitful, pernicious, sacrilegious things did the
Egyptian Hermes sorrow, because he knew that the time was coming when they
should be removed. But his sorrow was as impudently expressed as his
knowledge was imprudently obtained; for it was not the Holy Spirit who
revealed these things to him, as He had done to the holy prophets, who,
foreseeing these things, said with exultation, "If a man shall make gods,
lo, they are no gods;(3) and in another place, "And it shall come to pass
in that day, saith the Lord, that I will cut off the names of the idols out
of the land, and they shall no more be remembered."(4) But the holy Isaiah
prophesies expressly concerning Egypt in reference to this matter, saying,
"And the idols of Egypt shall be moved at His presence, and their heart
shall be overcome in them,"(5) and other things to the same effect. And
with the prophet are to be classed those who rejoiced that that which they
knew was to come had actually come,--as Simeon, or Anna, who immediately
recognized Jesus when He was born, or Elisabeth, who in the Spirit
recognized Him when He was conceived, or Peter, who said by the revelation
of the Father, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God."(1) But to this
Egyptian those spirits indicated the time of their own destruction, who
also, when the Lord was present in the flesh, said with trembling, "Art
Thou come hither to destroy us before the time?"(2) meaning by destruction
before the time, either that very destruction which they expected to come,
but which they did not think would come so suddenly as it appeared to have
done, or only that destruction which consisted in their being brought into
contempt by being made known. And, indeed, this was a destruction before
the time, that is, before the time of judgment, when they are to be
punished with eternal damnation, together with all men who are implicated
in their wickedness, as the true religion declares, which neither errs nor
leads into error; for it is not like him who, blown hither and thither by
every wind of doctrine, and mixing true things with things which are
false, bewails as about to perish a religion, which he afterwards confesses
to be error.
CHAP. 24.--HOW HERMES OPENLY CONFESSED THE ERROR OF HIS FOREFATHERS, THE
COMING DESTRUCTION OF WHICH HE NEVERTHELESS BEWAILED.
After a long interval, Hermes again comes back to the subject of the
gods which men have made, saying as follows: "But enough on this subject.
Let us return to man and to reason, that divine gift on account of which
man has been called a rational animal. For the things which have been said
concerning man, wonderful though they are, are less wonderful than those
which have been said concerning reason. For man to discover the divine
nature, and to make it, surpasses the wonder of all other wonderful things.
Because, therefore, our forefathers erred very far with respect to the
knowledge of the gods, through incredulity and through want of attention to
their worship and service, they invented this art of making gods; and this
art once invented, they associated with it a suitable virtue borrowed from
universal nature, and being incapable of making souls, they evoked those of
demons or of angels, and united them with these holy images and divine
mysteries, in order that through these souls the images might have power to
do good or harm to men." I know not whether the demons themselves could
have been made, even by adjuration, to confess as he has confessed in these
words: "Because our forefathers erred very far with respect to the
knowledge of the gods, through incredulity and through want of attention to
their worship and service, they invented the art of making gods." Does he
say that it was a moderate degree of error which resulted in their
discovery of the art of making gods, or was he content to say "they erred?"
No; he must needs add "very far," and say, "They erred very far." It was
this great error and incredulity, then, of their forefathers who did not
attend to the worship and service of the gods, which was the origin of the
art of making gods. And yet this wise man grieves over the ruin of this art
at some future time, as if it were a divine religion. Is he not verily
compelled by divine influence, on the one hand, to reveal the past error of
his forefathers, and by a diabolical influence, on the other hand, to
bewail the future punishment of demons? For if their forefathers, by erring
very far with respect to the knowledge of the gods, through incredulity and
aversion of mind from their worship and service, invented the art of making
gods, what wonder is it that all that is done by this detestable art, which
is opposed to the divine religion, should be taken away by that religion,
when truth corrects error, faith refutes incredulity, and conversion
rectifies aversion?
For if he had only said, without mentioning the cause, that his
forefathers had discovered the art Of making gods, it would have been our
duty, if we paid any regard to what is right and pious, to consider and to
see that they could never have attained to this art if they had not erred
from the truth, if they had believed those things which are worthy of God,
if they had attended to divine worship and service. However, if we alone
should say that the causes of this art were to be found in the great error
and incredulity of men, and aversion of the mind erring from and unfaithful
to divine religion, the impudence of those who resist the truth were in
some way to be borne with; but when he who admires in man, above all other
things, this power which it has been granted him to practise, and sorrows
because a time is coming when all those figments of gods invented by men
shall even be commanded by the laws to be taken away,--when even this man
confesses nevertheless, and explains the causes which led to the discovery
of this art, saying that their ancestors, through great error and
incredulity, and through not attending to the worship and service of the
gods, invented this art of making gods,--what ought we to say, or rather to
do, but to give to the Lord our God all the thanks we are able, because He
has taken away those things by causes the contrary of those which led to
their institution? For that which the prevalence of error instituted, the
way of truth took away; that which incredulity instituted, faith took away;
that which aversion from divine worship and service instituted, conversion
to the one true and holy God took away. Nor was this the case only in
Egypt, for which country alone the spirit of the demons lamented in Hermes,
but in all the earth, which sings to the Lord a new song,(1) as the truly
holy and truly prophetic Scriptures have predicted, in which it is written,
"Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth." For the
title of this psalm is, "When the house was built after the captivity." For
a house is being built to the Lord in all the earth, even the city of God,
which is the holy Church, after that captivity in which demons held captive
those men who, through faith in God, became living stones in the house. For
although man made gods, it did not follow that he who made them was not
held captive by them, when, by worshipping them, he was drawn into
fellowship with them,--into the fellowship not of stolid idols, but of
cunning demons; for what are idols but what they are represented to be in
the same Scriptures, "They have eyes, but they do not see,"(2) and, though
artistically fashioned, are still without life and sensation? But unclean
spirits, associated through that wicked art with these same idols, have
miserably taken captive the souls of their worshippers, by bringing them
down into fellowship with themselves. Whence the apostle says, "We know
that an idol is nothing, but those things which the Gentiles sacrifice they
sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I would not ye should have
fellowship with demons."(3) After this captivity, therefore, in which men
were held by malign demons, the house of God is being built in all the
earth; whence the title of that psalm in which it is said, "Sing unto the
Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord,
bless His name; declare well His salvation from day to day. Declare His
glory among the nations, among all people His wonderful things. For great
is the Lord, and much to be praised: He is terrible above all gods. For all
the gods of the nations are demons: but the Lord made the heavens."(4)
Wherefore he who sorrowed because a time was coming when the worship of
idols should be abolished, and the domination of the demons over those who
worshipped them, wished, under the influence of a demon, that that
captivity should always continue, at the cessation of which that psalm
celebrates the building of the house of the Lord in all the earth. Hermes
foretold these things with grief, the prophet with joyfulness; and because
the Spirit is victorious who sang these things through the ancient
prophets, even Hermes himself was compelled in a wonderful manner to
confess, that those very things which he wished not to be removed, and at
the prospect of whose removal he was sorrowful, had been instituted, not by
prudent, faithful, and religious, but by erring and unbelieving men, averse
to the worship and service of the gods. And although he calls them gods,
nevertheless, when he says that they were made by such men as we certainly
ought not to be, he shows, whether he will or not, that they are not to be
worshipped by those who do not resemble these image-makers, that is, by
prudent, faithful, and religious men, at the same time also making it
manifest that the very men who made them involved themselves in the worship
of those as gods who were not gods. For true is the saying of the prophet,
"If a man make gods, lo, they are no gods."(5) Such gods, therefore,
acknowledged by such worshippers and made by such men, did Hermes call
"gods made by men," that is to say, demons, through some art of I know not
what description, bound by the chains of their own lusts to images. But,
nevertheless, he did not agree with that opinion of the Platonic Apuleius,
of which we have already shown the incongruity and absurdity, namely, that
they were interpreters and intercessors between the gods whom God made, and
men whom the same God made, bringing to God the prayers of men, and from
God the gifts given in answer to these prayers. For it is exceedingly
stupid to believe that gods whom men have made have more influence with
gods whom God has made than men themselves have, whom the very same God has
made. And consider, too, that it is a demon which, bound by a man to an
image by means of an impious art, has been made a god, but a god to such a
man only, not to every man. What kind of god, therefore, is that which no
man would make but one erring, incredulous, and averse to the true God?
Moreover, if the demons which are worshipped in the temples, being
introduced by some kind of strange art into images, that is, into visible
representations of themselves, by those men who by this art made gods when
they were straying away from, and were averse to the worship and service of
the gods,--if, I say, those demons are neither mediators nor interpreters
between men and the gods, both on account of their own most wicked and base
manners, and because men, though erring, incredulous, and averse from the
worship and service of the gods, are nevertheless beyond doubt better than
the demons whom they themselves have evoked, then it remains to be affirmed
that what power they possess they possess as demons, doing harm by
bestowing pretended benefits,--harm all the greater for the deception,--or
else openly and undisguisedly doing evil to men. They cannot, however, do
anything of this kind unless where they are permitted by the deep and
secret providence of God, and then only so far as they are permitted. When,
however, they are permitted, it is not because they, being midway between
men and the gods, have through the friendship of the gods great power over
men; for these demons cannot possibly be friends to the good gods who dwell
in the holy and heavenly habitation, by whom we mean holy angels and
rational creatures, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or
powers, from whom they are as far separated in disposition and character as
vice is distant from virtue, wickedness from goodness.
CHAP. 25.--CONCERNING THOSE THINGS WHICH MAY BE COMMON TO THE HOLY ANGELS
AND TO MEN.
Wherefore we must by no means seek, through the supposed mediation of
demons, to avail ourselves of the benevolence or beneficence of the gods,
or rather of the good angels, but through resembling them in the possession
of a good will, through which we are with them, and live with them, and
worship with them the same God, although we cannot see them with the eyes
of our flesh. But it is not in locality we are distant from them, but in
merit of life, caused by our miserable unlikeness to them in will, and by
the weakness of our character; for the mere fact of our dwelling on earth
under the conditions of life in the flesh does not prevent our fellowship
with them. It is only prevented when we, in the impurity of our hearts,
mind earthly things. But in this present time, while we are being healed
that we may eventually be as they are, we are brought near to them by
faith, if by their assistance we believe that He who is their blessedness
is also ours.
CHAP. 26.--THAT ALL THE RELIGION OF THE PAGANS HAS REFERENCE TO DEAD MEN.
It is certainly a remarkable thing how this Egyptian, when expressing
his grief that a time was coming when those things would be taken away from
Egypt, which he confesses to have been invented by men erring, incredulous,
and averse to the service of divine religion, says, among other things,
"Then shall that land, the most holy place of shrines and temples, be full
of sepulchres and dead men," as if, in sooth, if these things were not
taken away, men would not die! as if dead bodies could be buried elsewhere
than in the ground! as if, as time advanced, the number of sepulchres must
not necessarily increase in proportion to the increase of the number of the
dead! But they who are of a perverse mind, and opposed to us, suppose that
what he grieves for is that the memorials of our martyrs were to succeed to
their temples and shrines, in order, forsooth, that they may have grounds
for thinking that gods were worshipped by the pagans in temples, but that
dead men are worshipped by us in sepulchres. For with such blindness do
impious men, as it were, stumble over mountains, and will not see the
things which strike their own eyes, that they do not attend to the fact
that in all the literature of the pagans there are not found any, or
scarcely any gods, who have not been men, to whom, when dead, divine honors
have been paid. I will not enlarge on the fact that Varro says that all
dead men are thought by them to be gods--Manes and proves it by those
sacred rites which are performed in honor of almost all the dead, among
which he mentions funeral games, considering this the very highest proof of
divinity, because games are only wont to be celebrated in honor of
divinities. Hermes himself, of whom we are now treating, in that same book
in which, as if foretelling future things, he says with sorrow "Then shall
that land, the most holy place of shrines and temples, be full of
sepulchres and dead men," testifies that the gods of Egypt were dead men.
For, having said that their forefathers, erring very far with respect to
the knowledge of the gods, incredulous and inattentive to the divine
worship and service, invented the art of making gods, with which art, when
invented, they associated the appropriate virtue which is inherent in
universal nature, and by mixing up that virtue with this art, they called
forth the souls of demons or of angels (for they could not make souls), and
caused them to take possession of, or associate themselves with holy images
and divine mysteries, in order that through these souls the images might
have power to do good or harm to men;--having said this, he goes on, as it
were, to prove it by illustrations, saying, "Thy grandsire, O Aesculapius,
the first discoverer of medicine, to whom a temple was consecrated in a
mountain of Libya, near to the shore of the crocodiles, in which temple
lies his earthly man, that is, his body,--for the better part of him, or
rather the whole of him, if the whole man is in the intelligent life, went
back to heaven,--affords even now by his divinity all those helps to infirm
men which formerly he was wont to afford to them by the art of medicine."
He says, therefore that a dead man was worshipped as a god in that place
where he had his sepulchre. He deceives men by a falsehood, for the man
"went back to heaven." Then he adds "Does not Hermes, who was my grandsire,
and whose name I bear, abiding in the country which is called by his name,
help and preserve all mortals who come to him from every quarter?" For this
eider Hermes, that is, Mercury, who, he says, was his grandsire, is said to
be buried in Hermopolis, that is, in the city called by his name; so here
are two gods Whom he affirms to have been men, Aesculapius and Mercury. Now
concerning Aesculapius, both the Greeks and the Latins think the same
thing; but as to Mercury, there are many who do not think that he was
formerly a mortal, though Hermes testifies that he was his grandsire. But
are these two different individuals who were called by the same name? I
will not dispute much whether they are different individuals or not. It is
sufficient to know that this Mercury of whom Hermes speaks is, as well as
Aesculapius, a god who once was a man, according, to the testimony of this
same Trismegistus, esteemed so great by his countrymen, and also the
grandson of Mercury himself.
Hermes goes on to say, "But do we know how many good things Isis, the
wife of Osiris, bestows when she is propitious, and what great opposition
she can offer when enraged?" Then, in order to show that there were gods
made by men through this art, he goes on to say, "For it is easy for
earthly and mundane gods to be angry, being made and composed by men out of
either nature;" thus giving us to understand that he believed that demons
were formerly the souls of dead men, which, as he says, by means of a
certain art invented by men very far in error, incredulous, and
irreligious, were caused to take possession of images, because they who
made such gods were not able to make souls. When, therefore, he says
"either nature," he means soul and body,--the demon being the soul, and the
image the body. What, then, becomes of that mournful complaint, that the
land of Egypt, the most holy place of shrines and temples, was to be full
of sepulchres and dead men? Verily, the fallacious spirit, by whose
inspiration Hermes spoke these things, was compelled to confess through him
that even already that land was full of sepulchres and of dead men, whom
they were worshipping as gods. But it was the grief of the demons which was
expressing itself through his. mouth, who were sorrowing on account of the
punishments which were about to fall upon them at the tombs of the martyrs.
For in many such places they are tortured and compelled to confess, and are
cast out of the bodies of men, of which they had taken possession.
CHAP. 27.---CONCERNING THE NATURE OF THE HONOR WHICH THE CHRISTIANS PAY TO
THEIR MARTYRS.
But, nevertheless, we do not build temples, and ordain priests, rites,
and sacrifices for these same martyrs; for they are not our gods, but their
God is our God. Certainly we honor their reliquaries, as the memorials of
holy men of God who strove for the truth even to the death of their bodies,
that the true religion might be made known, and false and fictitious
religions exposed. For if there were some before them who thought that
these religions were really false and fictitious, they were afraid to give
expression to their convictions. But who ever heard a priest of the
faithful, standing at an altar built for the honor and worship of God over
the holy body of some martyr, say in the prayers, I offer to thee a
sacrifice, O Peter, or O Paul, or O Cyprian? for it is to God that
sacrifices are offered at their tombs,--the God who made them both men and
martyrs, and associated them with holy angels in celestial honor; and the
reason why we pay such honors to their memory is, that by so doing we may
both give thanks to the true God for their victories, and, by recalling
them afresh to remembrance, may stir ourselves up to imitate them by
seeking to obtain like crowns and palms, calling to our help that same God
on whom they called. Therefore, whatever honors the religions may pay in
the places of the martyrs, they are but honors rendered to their memory,(1)
not sacred rites or sacrifices offered to dead men as to gods. And even
such as bring thither food,--which, indeed, is not done by the better
Christians, and in most places of the world is not done at all,--do so in
order that it may be sanctified to them through the merits of the martyrs,
in the name of the Lord of the martyrs, first presenting the food and
offering prayer, and thereafter taking it away to be eaten, or to be in
part bestowed upon the needy.(1) But he who knows the one sacrifice of
Christians, which is the sacrifice offered in those places, also knows that
these are not sacrifices offered to the martyrs. It is, then, neither with
divine honors nor with human crimes, by which they worship their gods, that
we honor our martyrs; neither do we offer sacrifices to them, or convert
the crimes of the gods into their sacred rites. For let those who will and
can read the letter of Alexander to his mother Olympias, in which he tells
the things which were revealed to him by the priest Leon, and let those who
have read it recall to memory what it contains, that they may see what
great abominations have been handed down to memory, not by poets, but by
the mystic writings of the Egyptians, concerning the goddess Isis, the wife
of Osiris, and the parents of both, all of whom, according to these
writings, were royal personages. Isis, when sacrificing to her parents, is
said to have discovered a crop of barley, of which she brought some ears to
the king her husband, and his councillor Mercurius, and hence they identify
her with Ceres. Those who read the letter may there see what was the
character of those people to whom when dead sacred rites were instituted as
to gods, and what those deeds of theirs were which furnished the occasion
for these rites. Let them not once dare to compare in any respect those
people, though they hold them to be gods, to our holy martyrs, though we do
not hold them to be gods. For we do not ordain priests and offer sacrifices
to our martyrs, as they do to their dead men, for that would be
incongruous, undue, and unlawful, such being due only to God; and thus we
do not delight them with their own crimes, or with such shameful plays as
those in which the crimes of the gods are celebrated, which are either real
crimes committed by them at a time when they were men, or else, if they
never were men, fictitious crimes invented for the pleasure of noxious
demons. The god of Socrates, if he had a god, cannot have belonged to this
class of demons. But perhaps they who wished to excel in this art of making
gods, imposed a god of this sort on a man who was a stranger to, and
innocent of any connection with that art. What need we say more? No one who
is even moderately wise imagines that demons are to be worshipped on
account of the blessed life which is to be after death. But perhaps they
will say that all the gods are good, but that of the demons some are bad
and some good, and that it is the good who are to be worshipped, in order
that through them we may attain to the eternally blessed life. To the
examination of this opinion we will devote the following book.
Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland, beginning in
1867. (LNPF I/II, Schaff). The digital version is by The Electronic Bible
Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright (c) Eternal Word Television Network 1996.
Provided courtesy of:
EWTN On-Line Services
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 20108
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
FTP: ftp.ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
WWW: http://www.ewtn.com.
Email address: sysop@ewtn.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------